Opinion ID: 2089131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Second Contempt Incident

Text: Several days before the scheduled commencement of her April 1993, trial on the malicious destruction of property charge, two events took place which prompted the government to move for another contempt hearing. On March 24, 1993, Ms. Smith telephoned a radio station in which Ms. Hughes had an ownership interest. She made voice contact only with the office manager of the station, and only uttered a few words before being placed on hold: Tell Ms. Hughes if she wants to know where I got my money from. Ms. Smith hung up before the office manager returned to the telephone. Two days later, Dalton Howard an attorney who then represented Mr. Graham, who had also represented Ms. Smith in 1988, and who had informally advised Ms. Hughes with respect to her business, received three answering machine messages from Ms. Smith. The thrust of the messages was that Mr. Graham should cease prosecuting the malicious destruction case against her because his popularity had declined and attendance at his musical concerts had fallen off. On March 30, 1993, the government moved for a contempt hearing under D.C.Code § 23-1329(c) (1989) because of these new incidents. Two controversies arose concerning the government's motion. One pertained to whether there was a stay away order referring to third party contacts. [2] The second controversy concerned whether the government's motion for a contempt hearing referred to one or to two contempts. Judge Duncan-Peters raised this question on May 18, 1993. The government took the position that the efforts to contact Ms. Hughes at her radio station and Mr. Graham through his attorney represented separate counts. Ms. Smith objected on the ground that: no charging document [was] ever filed that said there were two separate counts. The trial judge heard oral arguments on May 18, 1993, on Ms. Smith's motion for judgment of acquittal. The motion was denied. The trial court also conducted a fairly extensive hearing on May 18 & 19, 1993, during which the issue of one or two contempts was addressed by counsel for both parties; documentary evidence was reviewed and introduced; witnesses were heard; and both counsel presented argument. Ms. Smith was advised as to her right to testify and decided not to do so. At the end of the hearing the trial court announced its findings and conclusions. The trial court found that Ms. Smith is an extremely intelligent individual, very articulate, one who in the Court's view has no difficulty understanding court orders, but one who has become involved in a relationship that has been unhealthy for her, by her own admission, as well as unhealthy for others. The trial court stated that: the order of [the trial judge] to the defendant on October 9th, 1992 . . . further clarifies the original stay-away order that was issued on May 12th, 1992, ... [the trial judge] said to the defendant that she was making it crystal clear ... that she was not to have any contact with these individuals and that she was not to direct others to have contact on her behalf with these individuals. The trial court concluded that Ms. Smith's call to the radio station was a de minimis violation of the order, that it was prompted by the remarks that were made on the radio. [3] Accordingly, the trial court ruled Ms. Smith not guilty of contempt with respect to her call to the radio station. However, the trial court concluded that the March 26, 1993, telephone calls to Mr. Howard constituted a very clear violation of [the trial judge's] order and the stay-away order. The testimony of Mr. Howard was credited, and the trial court noted that: there was nothing he said to give the defendant the impression that she should contact Mr. Graham. Rather, what he said was that he would make an effort through her attorneys to attempt to get her attorneys together with Mr. Graham. The trial court noted that Ms. Smith had called Mr. Howard three different times, and that: each and every one of these statements is one that is in this Court's view designed to deter Mr. Graham from pursuing the matter, designed to cause him concern about coming down to court and testifying. These statements not only constituted a violation of the stay away order but the combination of these statements together could not be a clearer attempt to persuade a witness through a third party to cease his efforts to have a pending matter resolved in an orderly manner in the court system. On June 14, 1993, the trial court sentenced Ms. Smith to ninety days in jail.