Opinion ID: 2189569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Testimony of General Magistrate O'Brien

Text: General Magistrate O'Brien testified at trial that defendant came before him in 1997 for a hearing in the Family Court. General Magistrate O'Brien then testified about his personal observations of defendant's courtroom outburst. General Magistrate O'Brien also testified that one of the deputy sheriffs was injured and to my belief remains out of work from two years after whatever it was. The state then asked General Magistrate O'Brien whether the injured and out-of-work deputy sheriff was the sheriff defendant kicked during his courtroom altercation. [6] General Magistrate O'Brien responded that he did not know whether the injured and out-of-work sheriff and the sheriff defendant kicked were the same person. Next, General Magistrate O'Brien testified that, after the altercation, he found defendant to be in contempt of court. The state asked General Magistrate O'Brien to explain contempt to the jury, and defense counsel objected on grounds that the issue was irrelevant. The trial justice nevertheless allowed the testimony, and General Magistrate O'Brien explained contempt as a violation of an order. Generally, if someone  if a judge said do this, that and thus and somebody did not do it that is contempt. In this instance    I deemed what was taking place to be a disruption. i.