Vizcaino v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the defendant was not convicted of summary criminal contempt when the trial judge failed to enter a contemporaneous written judgment on the docket and did not provide the required opportunity to present argument concerning guilt or punishment. The contempt proceeding therefore proceeded nonsummarily under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 44, and a subsequent indictment did not violate double jeopardy. The court remanded for denial of the defendant’s petition for relief.

Holdings

1. No. A defendant is not convicted of summary criminal contempt unless the judge enters a contemporaneous judgment of contempt on the court's record, signed by the judge and containing a recital of the facts supporting the adjudication.
2. No. The judge's discussion with counsel concerning the applicable contempt procedure did not satisfy rule 43(b)'s requirement that the contemnor receive at least a summary opportunity to adduce evidence or argument relevant to guilt or punishment before adjudication.
3. No. Because the defendant was not convicted of summary contempt on May 12, jeopardy, if it attached, never terminated. The proceeding became a nonsummary criminal-contempt proceeding under Mass. R. Crim. P. 44, so the subsequent indictment was not barred by double jeopardy.
4. No. A judgment of civil contempt does not create a double-jeopardy bar to a later prosecution for criminal contempt because civil and criminal contempt serve different purposes.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial judge's oral statement on May 12 constituted a conviction of summary criminal contempt under Mass. R. Crim. P. 43 despite the failure to enter a contemporaneous written judgment on the docket.
2. Whether the failure to provide the defendant a summary opportunity to present evidence or argument relevant to guilt or punishment precluded a summary-contempt conviction.
3. Whether the subsequent indictment for nonsummary criminal contempt was barred by double jeopardy.

Disposition

remanded