Opinion ID: 2367131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: On this issue the Court of Special Appeals said: Appellants argue that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions of direct contempt because the State failed to establish that they intended to disrupt the proceedings; that they, rather than the other prisoners in the `bull pen', caused the proceedings to be disrupted, and that they were not warned that if the noise continued, they would be held in contempt. We find no merit to appellants' arguments. It said also: We also think that the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that appellants were responsible for, or contributed to, the noise that interrupted the order of the court and its proceedings. Moreover, even if appellants were not specifically admonished that they would be held in contempt if they did not discontinue the noise, such a warning is not a necessary prerequisite to a finding of direct contempt. See Robinson v. State, 19 Md. App. 20, 28 (1973). We adopt that opinion.