## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

People v . Duff , 2012 IL App (5th) 100479

Appellate Court Caption THE PEOPL E OF THE STATE OF I L L I NOI S, Plaintiff-Appe l lee, v. WI L L IAM C. DUF F, Contemnor-Appellant.–THE PEOPL E OF THE S T AT E OF I L L I

NOI S, Plaintiff-Appellee
, v. WI L L IAM C. DUF F, Contemnor-Appe llant.

District & N o. Fifth District Docke t Nos. 5-10-0479, 5-10- 0501 cons.

Filed J une 18, 2012

Held (Note : This syl lab us

con st it ute s no par t o

f the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) In proce eding s ari s i n g fr o m a hearing on a visitation issue in a marital dissoluti on case and a reque st for an order of protec tion, the convictions for direc t criminal co ntempt enter ed ag ainst defe ndant based on his conduct in the courtroom wer e reve rsed and the cause was rema nded for

a hearing to deter

mine whether defe ndant suffe red from a mental illness that aff ecte d his ability to form the requi s i te intent to commit direc t criminal conte mpt.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l from the Circuit Court of Fa yette County
, Nos. 10-CC-1, 10-CC2; the Hon. S. Gene Schw arm, Judge, pr esiding

.

J udg ment Reverse d and re manded.Counsel on

Appea l Michae l J

. Pelletier, J ohannah B. Weber, and J ohn H. Gleason, all of State Appellate D efe nder’ s Offic e, of Mt. Ve rnon, for appellant.

Steve Friedel, State’s Attorney
, of Vanda lia (Patrick Delfino, Stephen E. Norris, and Rebec ca E. McCormick, all of State’s Attorney s Appellate Prosecutor’ s Offic e, of c ounsel), for the People.

Panel J USTI CE CHAPMAN delivere d the judgme nt of the court, with opinion.
J ustices Welch and Wexstten conc urre d in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 The defe ndant appea ls from two order s of contempt enter ed by the circ uit court of F ayette County

. The order s of contempt stem from the defe ndant’s behavior during two hearings that took place on September 7, 2 0 1 0
, and S eptember 27, 2010. On appeal, the defenda nt asks this court to reve rse both order s, either on grounds that the ev i d en ce was insufficient to support the finding s of contempt or alternatively on the basis that his mental capa city to commit contempt was an issue not addre ssed by the court and there fore the contempt order s must be vacated.

¶ 2 FACTS ¶ 3 The hearings wer e related to a visitation issue in a marital dissoluti on case and a re quest for a n order of protec tion. The defe ndant re prese nted himself at both hea ring s. ¶ 4 The first hearing on various pending motions was schedule d for September 7, 2010. The first motion called at this hearing was the defe ndant’s motion to chang e venue. The defe ndant filed a motion to chang e venue in both case s. His argument cente red o n h is
perc eived inabi l i t y t o g et a fair trial with any judge in the Four th J udicial Circuit. The defe ndant mad e a l engthy statement to the court about claimed inequities in his life. The
court attempted to g et the def endant to foc us on arguments g erma ne only to his motion for

a chang e of venue. In a statement on the rec ord, the defe ndant blamed s p ec ific judge s for ruining his marria g e and endang ering his two children, alleg ing that the judge s wer e allowing his former in-law s to sexually molest his children and wer e covering up the evidenc e. He interjec ted that President Geor g e W. Bush and St a te Sen a to r D e anna Demuzio had confirme d that these alleg ations neede d to be addre ssed and investigated on a fede ral level. The defe ndant spoke about how his mother had been murdere d and how the Montgome ry County State’s Att orney wa s i nvolved i n a cover-up of the murder

. He also stated that hi s fathe r’s

car had been vandalized and that three fires had been set to his own proper ty

. At one point, the trial judge asked the defe ndant to slow his rate of speec h down beca use he was speaking too f ast for the court repor

ter to rec ord ever

y thing that he said. The defe ndant informed the

-2-court that he neede d to file the “pape rwork” from President Bush and Senator Demuzio. The

court told him to phy sically step back, and it denied his reque st to file these documents, stating:
“Mr. Duff, let me advise you reg arding direc t criminal contempt of court. I f you rise
ag ain from your chair
, and attempt to approa ch the bench, or if you raise your voice over mine, I ’m g oing to find you in contempt of court and order that you be incar cer ated. Now Iwant to make sur e–and I think you know the rules we play by in this cour troom, but I
want to make sure you know that. And you’re not g oing to make a mo ck ery o f t h i s proce eding this morning

. I ’m g oing to g ive you the opportunity to be hear d and you need
to keep your arguments g erma ne to those motions. I ’m not g oing to tolerate this behavior in my courtroom. And you can hold your hands up–and let the rec ord ref lect he holds his hands up as if he’s done nothing wrong

. Mr. Duff, you’ve been in a courtroom befor e and
you know how to act prope rl y

. W e s h ow eac h other respe ct. I ’m g oing to show you respe ct, I ’m g oing to listen to you. You’re g oing to show [Natalie Stout’s lawyer] and his client respe ct, you’re g oin g t o show the Court, the J udg e, respe ct, and this proce eding
respe ct.” The court took a five-minute rec ess in or der to a llow the defe ndant time to c alm down and
g et his emotions under control. During the rec ess, the defe ndant filed a motion to rec use the judge

. In an attempt to clarify
, th e court asked the defe ndant if this was intended to be a motion to substitut e the judge for cause

. The defe ndant re s p onded in the aff irmative. The
court asked the defe ndant seve ral times why he filed the motion, and the defe ndant mere ly
repe ated, “I think you know.” The court attempted to explain to the defe ndant that his motion

was faulty in that it was not signe d and contained no af fi davit. The exchang e betwee n the defe ndant and the trial judge continued, with the rec ord detailing the fac t that the defe ndant interrupted or spoke over the trial judge numerous times. The court noted on the rec ord that the defe ndant was highly ag itated, fidg ety , and moving around rapidly

. The court also noted that the def

endant wa s making hand gesture s and was beingdisrespec tful. The cour t ag ain admonished the defe ndant of the rules associate d wi t h p re s ence and decor um in the
courtroom. He was told that if he was unable to act in acc ordanc e with these rules, the court would find him in contempt. The defe ndant then to l d t h e court that he suffe red from a hearing defic iency and that he could not he ar the judg e. The defe ndant threw his pe n and a pair of g lasses on the counsel table. The court noted on the rec ord that the defe n dant had seeming ly been able to hear and re spond to direct questions up to that point in the hearing. The court beg an to sum up the events of the morning

. The defe ndant raised his hand and the judge advised him to put his hand down. Then the defe ndant argued that he had a serious hear t condi t i o n wh i ch require d medication. The defe ndant stated on the rec ord that any comments made by the trial judge describing his actions or demea nor in the courtroom wer e inacc urate

. The defe ndant ad v i s ed the court that he had appealed ever y order of contempt enter ed ag ainst him in the past, a nd if found in contempt that day , he would do so ag ain. ¶ 5 The trial court found the defe ndant in criminal contempt of court by written order dated September 7, 2010. As a sanction for his contempt, the court sentenc ed him to immediate incar cer ation in the Fa

yette County

jail for thre e day s. ¶ 6 On September 27, 2010, the cour

t revisited the visitation matter in the divorce case , as

-3-well as the order of protec tion. The defe ndant beg an by filing a motion asking for evidenc e

to be hear d on the matter of his hearing disability

. The tenor of the hearing was simil ar to that of th e S eptember 7, 2010, hearing. The defe ndant was ag ain loud, argumentative, and disruptive. The court instructed the defe ndant not to interrupt the proce eding s. At one point, the defe ndant told the judge that he was biased and was committing a fe d er al crime. The
court repe atedly admonished the defe ndant to obey the court and act in a respe ctful manner

. The de fenda

nt larg ely ignor ed the court’s admonishments. From the de scriptions stated by the trial jud ge o n the rec ord, the defe ndant beca me highly ag itated and beg an speaking rapidly

. At one point, the defe ndant beg an arg uing with a witness, his ex-wife, Natalie Stout. The court informed the defe ndant that he would not be allowed to make a mockery o f the
court. The defe ndant acc used the trial judge of wasting his time and endang ering his children. The trial judge took a rec ess and informed the defe ndant that if he continued to interrupt and
act out, he would have to hold him i n co n t em p t ag ain. After the rec ess, the defe ndant continued to act combatively with Na t al i e Stout. The trial judge indicated that he was confuse d by the defendant’s behavior–e x tremely calm at times and very excitable at o t h er times. He asked the defe ndant if he had taken ang er manag ement classes befor e, and the defe ndant acknow ledg ed that he had done so. Ultimately
, afte r more outbursts, the defe ndant

was ag ain found in contempt of court and sentenc ed to 90 day s of incar ceration in the county jail. The order of contempt was enter ed beca use of the defe ndant’s contemptuous behavior : interrupting the court and opposing counsel, raising his voice inappropriately
, using disrespec tful voice inflection, making disrespec tful comments about the judge and the court, using disruptive body languag e including shaking his head, waving his arms and g etting out of his chair , and re fusingto remain silent when or dere d to do so. ¶ 7 On Oc tober 5, 2010, the court called the parties back to the courtroom to d i s cu s s t h e defe ndant’s desire to appeal from th e c ontempt order s and about the appointment of appellate counsel. One of the issues involved the appointment of a psycholog ist to evalua te the parties and their children. Judg e Schwar m stat ed o n t h e re cord that he was no mental health profe ssional, and he state d the followingabout the def endant: “[I ]n my observations of you over these past few hearings, you obviously suffe r from [a]
persona lity disorder, behavior disorder or some sort of mental illness, for you to act out the way that you do here in open court. T h es e co n cerns have been raised by your children’ s mother and these conce rns have been r aised by your childre n.”
At the conclusion of this hearing, the judge stayed, but did not va cate , the rema inder of the defe ndant’s conte mpt sentence . The c ourt order ed the de fenda nt relea sed from jail. ¶ 8 Fr om the criminal contempt order s of September 7, 2010, and September 27, 2010, the defe ndant appe als to this court.

¶ 9 I SSUES , LAW, AND ANALYSI S ¶ 10 Contempt of court is classified as either civil or criminal. Criminal contempt of court is conduct by an individual “ which is calc ulated to embar rass, hinder, or obstruct the court in its administration of justice or derog ate from its authority o r d ignity
, there by bring ing the ad m i n i s tration of law into disrepute.” People v. Sheahan
, 150 I ll. App. 3d 572, 574, 5 0 2

-4-N.E.2d 48, 50 (1986). The actions of the contemnor must be willful, as criminal contempt

require s intent. Id. “Intent or at least knowledg e of the n at u re of one’s act is a nece ssary element of contempt beca use contempt require s som e form of construction or actua l knowledg e of what conduc t is forbidden.” Id. (citing In re W atts , 66 I ll. App. 3d 971, 974, 3 8 4 N.E.2d 453, 455 (1978))

. In a direc t form of criminal contempt committe d i n t h e prese nce of the court, the intent require d can be inferr ed from the nature of the contemptuous conduct at issue. Id. ; People v. L.A.S.
, 111 I ll. 2d 539, 543, 490 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (1986). Be cause the contemptuous behavior occur red in the prese nce of the court, it is allowable for the judge to proce ed on this persona l knowledg e and to summarily punish th e contemnor without holding a hearing or allowing a defe nse to the charg e. Sheahan
, 150 I ll. App. 3d at 574, 502 N.E.2d at 50. These summary proce eding s are not considere d to be a violation of the contemnor’ s due proce ss rights. Id. at 574-75, 502 N.E.2d at 51; People v. Colli ns , 57 I ll. App. 3d 934, 936, 373 N.E.2d 750, 751-52 ( 1978). The pur pose of criminal contempt is to punish the contemnor. People v. Goleash
, 311 I ll. App. 3d 949, 956, 726 N.E.2d 194, 199 (2000). ¶ 11 We will not overturn a trial court’s finding of direc t criminal contempt unless that finding i s n o t s up ported by sufficie nt evidenc e. People v. Grave s , 74 I ll. 2d 279, 284, 384 N.E

. 2 d 1311, 1314 (1979). ¶ 12 We f

ind that the issue of the defe ndant’s ability to f orm the intent nec essar

y to commit

a criminal contempt of court due to mental illness is dispositi ve. We do not addre ss whether or not the convic tions were f actua lly supported. ¶ 13 Summary adjudication of co n t em p t i s ap p ro p ri ate when the trial judge has all fac ts

nece ssary to resolve the matter. Howeve r, if it appea rs that the defe ndant may have a mental health condition, that mental issue could bar criminal responsibility

. Sheahan
, 150 I ll. App. 3d at 576-77, 502 N.E.2d at 52 (quoting United States v. Flynt
, 756 F.2d 1352, 1364-66 (9th Cir. 1985)). I f there is a substantial issue of the defe ndant’s mental capa ci t y t o comm it contempt, an element of the crime of contempt is there fore not within the judge ’s knowledg e. People v. W

illson
, 302 I ll. App. 3d 1004, 1006, 706 N.E.2d 1075, 1077 (1999). The matter of mental illness is considere d to be beyond the persona l knowledg e of the trial judge

. Sheahan
, 150 I ll. App. 3d at 576-77, 502 N.E.2d at 52 (quoting Flynt
, 756 F.2d at 1364-66). “ ‘[T] he nature of [the defe ndant’s] words and conduct would raise a substantial question as to mental capa city in the mind of any rea sonable observe r, a question that could be answe red only on the basis of fac ts beyond the immediate knowledg e of a district court.’ ” Id. at 577, 502 N.E.2d at 52 (quoting Flynt
, 756 F.2d at 1366). I f the rec ord ref lects a substantial issue of intent to commit contempt due to mental illness, the court should initiate a hearing on the individual’s mental capa city

. Id. ; People v. W illson
, 302 I ll. App. 3d 1004, 1006, 706 N.E.2d 1075, 1077 (1999). ¶ 14 Ba sed upon our re v i ew o f t h e re co rd on appea l, we conclude that the matter of the defe ndant’s mental illness could have impacted his ability to form the intent to commit direc t criminal contempt. There wer e sufficie nt questions raised about the defe ndant’s mental mind-set, not only beca

use of his behavior s and statements in the courtroom but also based
upon documents he a

tte mpted to introduce into evidenc e. Additionally
, the visitation petition befor e the court at both hearings contained alleg ations that the defe ndant was mentally ill and

-5-that his “irrational behavior ” had been “esc alati n g i n rec ent m onths.” The trial judge even

made mention of Natalie’ s claims that the defe ndant was mentally ill. At one point, the trial judge commented on the rec ord that it wa s as i f t he defe ndant had two separ ate persona lities–a calm per sonality and a highly ag itated persona lity

. The judge stated that he did not know if the defe ndan t h ad the capa city to help himself but that his courtroom behavior was “just not rea sonable and rational.” At the October 5, 2010, hearing, afte r which the court order ed that the defe ndant be rele ased from jail, the judge noted that he was not a mental health expert, but sug g ested that the defe ndant suffe red from a “per sonality disorder, b ehavior disorder or some sort of mental illness” as an explanation for hi s co u rt ro o m behavior

. ¶ 15 We reve rse the convictions of di re ct cr i m i nal contempt. We rema nd these cases to the trial court for a hearing to deter mine if the defe ndant has a mental illness that could have had

a bearing on his ability to form the requisite intent for commission of direc t crimi nal contempt. ¶ 16 Be caus e we co n cl u d e t h at t here was an issue of the defe ndant’s ability to form the requisite intent for direc t criminal contempt on the basis of mental illness, we do not addre ss the defe ndant’s alternate theory that his hearing loss was t h e foundation for many of his actions.

¶ 17 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 18 For the fore g oing rea sons, the judgme nts of the circ uit court of Fa yette County are hereby

reve rsed a

nd the ca uses re manded.

¶ 19 Reverse d and re manded.

-6-