IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-1005
Filed: 7 June 2016
Wilson County, No. 15 CRS 01309
IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTOPHER KORFMANN,
Appeal by Christopher Korfmann from Order entered 10 June 2015 by Judge
Milton F. Fitch, Jr. in Wilson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
9 March 2016.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, by Brent F. Powell and James A. Dean.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kimberly N.
Callahan, for the State.
ELMORE, Judge.
Christopher Korfmann (appellant) appeals from the trial court’s order finding
him in direct criminal contempt for using a cell phone during jury deliberations and
sentencing him to thirty days in prison. After careful consideration, we reverse and
vacate the order.
I. Background
On 8 June 2015, appellant was selected to serve as a juror for a civil trial in
Wilson County Superior Court. After the trial and during jury deliberations, the trial
judge received a note from the jury room. As a result, he recalled the jury to the
courtroom and asked the foreperson, who happened to be appellant, “Was a cell phone
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
utilized by one of the jurors in this matter, yes or no?” Appellant responded, “Yes . . .
That was myself.” After a bench conference with the attorneys, the following colloquy
took place:
THE COURT: Sir, were you using that cell phone during
this trial?
THE FOREPERSON: No, sir.
THE COURT: How was the cell phone utilized?
THE FOREPERSON: Yesterday when I left the
courthouse.
THE BAILIFF: Stand up, sir.
(Foreperson stood.)
THE FOREPERSON: Yes, sir. Yesterday when I left the
courthouse I went to lunch and while I was at lunch I used
the note taking program on my cell phone to record my
notes because I didn’t have a piece of paper to write down.
THE COURT: Your notes, where did the notes come from?
THE FOREPERSON: The notes, the things that I wanted
to remember from the trial just so I could think about it
and that I wouldn’t forget if I had—there was a few
questions that I had that I wanted to ask today during
deliberation and I wrote down those questions that I
wanted to ask so I wouldn’t forget.
THE COURT: And who were you going to ask those
questions of?
THE FOREPERSON: They were the questions I was
planning to ask you, sir.
-2-
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
THE COURT: You were going to ask me the questions?
THE FOREPERSON: Well, no. I was going to ask the
Court because they were questions I didn’t feel were
answered during—
THE COURT: Do you understand what your function is as
a juror?
THE FOREPERSON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So why would you have these questions to
ask me, the Court?
THE FOREPERSON: Well, there were—perhaps I
misspoke. They were questions that I had about the case,
that I wrote down the questions simply because I didn’t
have a pen and paper to write down the questions and it
was more, it was, aside from questions it was things that I
wanted to remember that—
THE COURT: Did you hear my instruction that it is your
duty to recall and remember?
THE FOREPERSON: I did, sir, yes.
THE COURT: All right. Have a seat.
(Foreperson sat down.)
THE COURT: Come.
([The attorneys] approached the bench and a discussion
was held off the record.)
THE COURT: Madam Court Reporter, for the record, at
the beginning of this trial the parties agreed further and
stipulated further that the jury verdict could go down to
ten; thus I did not pick an alternate.
-3-
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
Because of the developments as I understand the
developments to have occurred in this jury room in this
matter, that is, an individual utilized a cell phone for the
purposes of questions, answers, notes or whatever, and
then informed the Court that the purpose of his notes were
to pose questions to the Court when the Court has made it
crystal clear that the jury is to rely on their recollection,
not their notes, not a cell phone, but their recollection. And
then come to find that the party who had utilized
technology turns out to be the Foreperson which cause [sic]
some problems in the jury room; thus how I got the issue.
I am going to declare a mistrial in this matter. And this
matter will have to be tried again.
It is the Court’s responsibility to avoid impropriety as well
as the appearance of impropriety. The court system
through its citizens that this court system belongs to
oftentimes gets a black eye from citizens who are not
willing to participate in the court system and to follow the
rules that are outlined by them.
This Court takes the strong position that technology is not
to be utilized by jurors and, in fact, this jury has been
warned several times not to use.
In my opinion the utilization by the juror is blatantly
disrespecting the Court’s order not to use.
Sir, I think that what I am going to do with you is I am
going to send you to Wilson County Jail for 30 days for
failing to follow the order given to you by this Court.
The ladies and gentlemen of this jury are now excused. You
can get a certificate as to where you have been for the last
several days. You are excused.
This gentleman is in your custody.
A “Direct Criminal Contempt/Summary Proceedings/Findings and Order” was
-4-
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
entered that same day stating the following:
The court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that during the
proceeding the above contemnor willfully behaved in a
contemptuous manner, in that the above named contemnor
did
DEFENDANT WAS A JUROR IN THE MIDDLE OF
DELIBERATIONS AND USED HIS CELL PHONE
AFTER BEING INSTRUCTED NOT TO DO SO.
The undersigned gave a clear warning that the contemnor’s
conduct was improper. In addition, the contemnor was
given summary notice of the charges and summary
opportunity to respond.
The contemnor’s conduct interrupted the proceedings of
the court and impaired the respect due its authority.
Therefore, it is adjudged that the above named contemnor
is in contempt of court. It is ordered that the contemnor
. . . be imprisoned for a term of 30 days in the custody of
the Sheriff.
Appellant was taken to the Wilson County Jail where he stayed for six nights
before being released on bail. According to appellant, upon his release all of his
personal belongings were returned to him with the exception of his phone. Appellant
filed notice of appeal on 15 June 2015 and a Motion for Appropriate Relief (MAR) on
19 June 2015. As of the filing of appellant’s brief on 7 October 2015, the trial court
had not scheduled a hearing for the MAR.
II. Analysis
“[O]ur standard of review for contempt cases is ‘whether there is competent
-5-
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether the findings support
the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment.’ ” State v. Phair, 193 N.C. App. 591,
593, 668 S.E.2d 110, 111 (2008) (quoting State v. Simon, 185 N.C. App. 247, 250, 648
S.E.2d 853, 855 (2007)).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11 provides a list of conduct that constitutes criminal
contempt. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11(a)(1)–(10) (2015). Although the trial court’s order
does not specify which subsection applies, it appears that the court based its order on
section 5A-11(a)(3), which states that criminal contempt is the “[w]illful disobedience
of, resistance to, or interference with a court’s lawful process, order, directive, or
instruction or its execution.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11(a)(3) (2015).
Direct criminal contempt occurs when the act “(1) [i]s committed within the
sight or hearing of a presiding judicial official; and (2) [i]s committed in, or in
immediate proximity to, the room where proceedings are being held before the court;
and (3) [i]s likely to interrupt or interfere with matters then before the court.” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 5A-13(a) (2015). “Any criminal contempt other than direct criminal
contempt is indirect criminal contempt and is punishable only after proceedings in
accordance with the procedure required by G.S. 5A-15.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-13(b).
On appeal, appellant submits a number of challenges to the trial court’s order. 1
1 Appellant argues that he did not violate a court process, order, directive, or instruction; the trial
court did not instruct him not to take or use notes; the trial court did not instruct him that he could
not use his phone during recesses or deliberations; the evidence does not support the finding he
-6-
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
Assuming without deciding that appellant engaged in direct criminal contempt, we
hold that the trial court failed to follow the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14
and the order must be vacated. Thus, we do not reach each of appellant’s arguments.
Appellant argues that “the process used to convict him fell short of the
requirements of North Carolina law.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14 allows a judge to “summarily impose measures in
response to direct criminal contempt[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14(a) (2015). Before
imposing measures in response to direct criminal contempt, though, “the judicial
official must give the person charged with contempt summary notice of the charges
and a summary opportunity to respond and must find facts supporting the summary
imposition of measures in response to contempt. The facts must be established
beyond a reasonable doubt.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14(b) (2015). This Court has
previously noted that “the requirements of [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14] are meant to
ensure that the individual has an opportunity to present reasons not to impose a
sanction.” In re Owens, 128 N.C. App. 577, 581, 496 S.E.2d 592, 594 (1998).
Moreover, “imprisonment may not be imposed for criminal contempt, whether direct
or indirect, unless: (1) The act or omission was willfully contemptuous; or (2) The act
or omission was preceded by a clear warning by the court that the conduct is
improper.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-12(b) (2015).
actually used his phone during deliberations; the trial court failed to make the requisite finding of
willfulness; and he did not engage in direct criminal contempt.
-7-
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
In Peaches v. Payne, this Court concluded that “the trial court failed to follow
the procedure mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14(b),” and as a result we reversed
the finding of contempt. 139 N.C. App. 580, 587, 533 S.E.2d 851, 855 (2000). We
reasoned, “The transcript reveals that the court advised contemnor that, because he
had questioned the rulings of the court and shown disrespect for the court, he was in
the bailiff’s custody. Court was immediately recessed without contemnor having been
given an opportunity to present reasons not to impose a sanction.” Id. (quotations
omitted).
Here, like in Peaches, the transcript shows that the trial court did not advise
appellant that he was being charged with contempt and appellant was not provided
an opportunity to respond to the charge. Instead, the trial court stated, “Sir, I think
that what I am going to do with you is I am going to send you to Wilson County Jail
for 30 days for failing to follow the order given to you by this Court.” The trial court
immediately excused the other jurors, told the bailiff that appellant was in his
custody, and announced that court was adjourned sine die.
The trial court did not give appellant the necessary “summary notice of the
charges and a summary opportunity to respond” before imposing measures under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14. The State’s argument that appellant “was given notice and
an opportunity to explain his actions” is not supported by the transcript. Although
appellant was able to respond to the trial judge’s preliminary questions, appellant
-8-
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
was not given an opportunity to respond to the charge. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14
(2015). Accordingly, because the trial court failed to comply with the statutory
requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14, we reverse and vacate the contempt order.
In Peaches, we stated, “Trial judges must have the ability to control their
courts. However, because a finding of contempt against a practitioner may have
significant repercussions for that lawyer, judges must also be punctilious about
following statutory requirements.” 139 N.C. App. at 587, 533 S.E.2d at 855. We point
out that a finding of contempt against a citizen, attempting to fulfill his civic duty to
serve as a juror for the first time, along with a thirty-day jail sentence, may also have
significant repercussions.
While the presiding judge is given large discretionary power as to the conduct
of a trial, we note that specifically instructing the jury as to certain discretionary
decisions may help jurors properly fulfill their role in court. For instance, North
Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction 100.70, “Taking of Notes by Jurors,” states the
following:
While the Rules of Civil Procedure have no statutory
analogue to G.S. § 15A-1228, which permits jurors in a
criminal case to make notes and take them into the jury
room (except where the judge on his own motion or the
motion of a party rules otherwise in his discretion), note-
taking in civil cases has been left, as a matter of practice, to
the sound discretion of the trial judge.
[If Denied: In my discretion, members of the jury, you will
not be allowed to take notes in this case.]
-9-
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
[If Allowed: In my discretion, you will be allowed to take
notes in this case.
When you begin your deliberations, you may use your notes
to help refresh your memory as to what was said in court.
I caution you, however, not to give your notes or the notes
of any of the other jurors undue significance in your
deliberations. All of the evidence is important. Do not let
note-taking distract you. Listen at all times intently to the
testimony.
Any notes taken by you are not to be considered evidence
in this case. Your notes are only to assist your memory and
are not entitled to any greater weight than the individual
recollections of other jurors.]
N.C.P.I.–Civil 100.70 (2004).
While “[o]ur trial court judges must be allowed to maintain order, respect and
proper function in their courtrooms[,]” State v. Randell, 152 N.C. App. 469, 473, 567
S.E.2d 814, 817 (2002), they must also follow all statutory requirements before
imposing a finding of contempt. See Peaches, 139 N.C. App. at 587, 533 S.E.2d at 855.
Appellant also claims that, even if he could have been properly held in
contempt, confiscation of his phone exceeds the sanctions allowed under North
Carolina law. In appellant’s affidavit, he states,
After telling me he was sending me to jail, the Judge
dismissed everyone. The bailiff took me to a room behind
the courtroom. Eventually, I was handcuffed and shackled
around my ankles and waste. All my personal belongings
were taken. I was told everything would be taken to the
jail, other than my phone. The phone was placed in an
envelope and put in a locked box in the room. The bailiff
- 10 -
IN RE: CRISTOPHER KORFMANN
Opinion of the Court
told me the Judge would keep the phone and was still
deciding whether to destroy it.
The record is devoid of any attempts by appellant to recover his phone. Until
appellant applies for his phone’s release and is refused, we cannot order the phone to
be returned to appellant. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-11.1(a) (2015).
III. Conclusion
Because appellant was not given summary notice of the charge against him
and was not given an opportunity to respond to the charge, we reverse and vacate the
trial court’s order.
REVERSED AND VACATED.
Judges McCULLOUGH and INMAN concur.
- 11 -