Opinion ID: 1938993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidentiary insufficiency.

Text: We first address Swisher's contention that the evidence against him was insufficient to support his conviction. If that position were correct, retrial would be barred as a matter of law by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); see generally Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 290-91, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). The elements of criminal contempt are (1) willful disobedience (2) of a court order (3) causing an obstruction of the orderly administration of justice. In re Thompson, 454 A.2d 1324, 1326 (D.C.1982) ( per curiam ). The offense requires both a contemptuous act and a wrongful state of mind. In re Gorfkle, 444 A.2d 934, 939-40 (D.C.1982). Swisher apparently challenges the sufficiency of the proof of the first and third elements. He claims that his conduct does not establish a willful attempt to show disrespect for the court or to disrupt the proceedings. See Warrick v. United States, 528 A.2d 438, 443-44 (D.C.1987). [8] Swisher acknowledged in open court, however, that he failed to appear because I wanted to go home and see [my grandfather] one last time before he was put in the ground. He essentially admitted that he made a deliberate choice. [9] Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the government, Irick v. United States, 565 A.2d 26, 30 (D.C.1989), and recognizing that the trial judge's findings cannot be disturbed unless they are shown to be without evidentiary support or plainly wrong, Browner v. District of Columbia, 549 A.2d 1107, 1114 (D.C.1988), we conclude that there was ample evidence of willfulness. [10] A defendant's unexcused failure to appear for trial on the scheduled date causes an obstruction of the orderly administration of justice. See In re Thompson, supra, 454 A.2d at 1327. [11] This court has described the use of criminal contempt sanctions as a prescribed method of punishing a defendant who fails to appear for trial. Campbell v. United States, 295 A.2d 498, 500 n. 8 (D.C.1972). The actual disruption in the present case may not have been great, [12] but the judge did not err in finding it sufficient to support Swisher's conviction for criminal contempt. Although Swisher has not so characterized it, his position on the merits parallels the defense of necessity. Translated into legal terminology, his statement to the court suggested that he failed to come to court because the harm that would have resulted from compliance with the law would have significantly exceeded the harm actually resulting from [his] breach of the law. Griffin v. United States, 447 A.2d 776, 777 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907, 103 S.Ct. 1879, 76 L.Ed.2d 810 (1983). We need not determine whether any family emergency, e.g., the resuscitation of a spouse or a child who suffered a heart attack, see In re Lamson, 468 F.2d 551, 552 (1st Cir.1972) ( per curiam ), would be sufficient to sustain the necessity defense, which is surely one of last resort. We hold only that the desire to attend the funeral of one's grandfather, however understandable and even praiseworthy it may be, does not, without more, constitute necessity. [13] Cf. United States v. Anonymous, 215 F.Supp. 111, 113-14 (E.D.Tenn. 1963) (attorney held in criminal contempt when he failed to appear for trial because there was a fire at a building in which he owned an interest; great burden on attorney caused by fire considered in mitigation only).