Modern Day Hatfields and McCoys Go To Court

Tennessee law case summary on contempt in family law from the Court of Appeals.

In re: Anna L.J.  – Tennessee contempt and evidence law

In 2011, Robert and Sabrina Jackson went to court in Williamson County to file a petition declaring that Anna Johnson was dependent and neglected.  Anna was the daughter of Dennis and Wanda Johnson.  The Jacksons asked the court to have Anna removed from the Johnson home and placed with the Jacksons.

Juvenile Judge Sharon Guffee appointed a guardian ad litem and special advocate, and an investigation took place.  A hearing was scheduled and then continued until December.  In December, the parties all informed Judge Guffee  that they had settled the matter and had agreed to certain requirements.  These requirements were incorporated into the court’s order.  In particular, the parties all agreed to mutual restraining orders.  The two families were order to not have any contact with each other.  The minor children were allowed to have contact only during school.

The next June, the Johnsons were back in court asking for Mr. Jackson to be held in criminal contempt.  They alleged that he had violated the no contact order 183 times.  They later filed a contempt petition against Mrs. Jackson, specifying only one violation.  The Jacksons answered, and asked for the Johnsons to be held in contempt for violating the order.

Meanwhile, a criminal indictment had been filed against Mr. Jackson for charges related to these same contacts, namely aggravated stalking, coercion of a witness, and contributing to the delinquency of a child.  He asked for a continuance because of the pending criminal case, but this request was denied.

In January 2013, Judge Guffee conducted a hearing to sort out all of the charges.  She found Mr. Jackson guilty of four counts, fined him $50, and sentenced him to ten days on each count, to run consecutively.  Mrs. Jackson was found guilty of one count, fined $50, and sentenced to ten days.  While everyone was leaving the courtroom, the court held Mrs. Jackson in direct contempt and sentenced her to an additional ten days, to start immediately.  At their attorney’s request, the trial court later stayed the sentences pending the appeal, the Jacksons being required to post bond.  The Jacksons then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

On appeal, Mr. Jackson first argued that the trial court should have continued the matter due to the pending criminal charges, since the procedure employed was unduly prejudicial.  Both he and another daughter were under indictment, and the daughter took the Fifth Amendment at the contempt hearing.  That left him with the choice to remain silent “and allow untruthful testimony to be introduced” or to testify knowing that it would be admissible in the criminal case.  But the appeals court held that this was an insufficient ground for a continuance.

The Court of Appeals then turned to the substantive allegations to see whether they constituted contempt.

On appeal, Mr. Jackson took the position that his actions were not willful.  He had been found guilty for four different events, occurring on four different dates.  In two of the incidents, the Johnson daughter had initiated the contact with Mr. Jackson, but he “did nothing to terminate the contact.”  The trial court had held that it was irrelevant that he had not initiated the contact.

Another contact was initiated by Mr. Jackson, but he claimed that it was accidental.  The trial judge stated that she did not find this testimony credible.

The final contact was with another Johnson daughter, in which Mr. Jackson intentionally sought her out and offered to let her stay at his home, if she had nowhere safe to go.  The appeals court agreed that the contact was willful.  However, the appeals court agreed with Mr. Jackson’s argument that the sentence had been unduly harsh, and remanded this portion of the case for resentencing.

Mrs. Jackson also appealed her two contempt convictions.  The first involved a statement by Mrs. Jackson to one of the Johnsons.  While Mrs. Jackson continued to deny this, the Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence in the record, and held that the sentence was proper.

The other incident of contempt was the one that took place while the parties were leaving the courtroom.  The guardian ad litem brought to the court’s attention that Mrs. Jackson was “giving them a look and holding her hands up to her.”  The guardian ad litem added, “she hasn’t learned a thing.”

From the record, there was nothing to indicate that the judge saw this conduct.  It merely took place in the same room.  Since there was no notice or hearing, the Court of Appeals reversed this conviction and sentence.

The Jacksons also argued that the trial court had improperly allowed the testimony of a witness who had been present in the courtroom.  Under the facts of the case, the appeals court held that the trial court had acted within its discretion in allowing this testimony.

Mr. Jackson had also sought to introduce an exhibit which consisted of a compilation of text messages he had received from the Johnsons.  The court had excluded this exhibit on the grounds that it had not been properly authenticated.  The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed this ruling as well.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.

No. M2013-00561-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.