Hammonds v. State

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether a trial court properly revoked Terry Wayne Hammonds's probation for allegedly committing direct criminal contempt and violating Maryland's witness-retaliation statute. The court held that the record did not support a finding of direct criminal contempt based on Hammonds's tearing up his probation papers in the courtroom. It further held that the statute did not require a threat to be communicated to the victim or witness, or made with the belief that it would be communicated to that person.

Holdings

1. The record did not support a finding of direct criminal contempt because the paper-tearing incident did not interrupt the order of the court or interfere with the dignified conduct of court business, and the evidence did not establish the required willful obstruction.
2. Section 9-303(a) does not require that a threat be communicated directly to the victim or witness, or that the defendant believe the threat would be communicated to that person.
3. The revocation order could not stand because the trial court relied on both the unsupported contempt finding and the alleged violation of § 9-303(a). The case had to be remanded for the trial court to determine whether to revoke probation based solely on the statutory violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Hammonds committed direct criminal contempt by tearing up his probation papers in the courtroom after sentencing.
2. Whether Maryland Criminal Law § 9-303(a) requires a retaliatory threat to be communicated directly to the victim or witness, or made with the belief that it would be communicated to that person.
3. Whether the trial court could revoke probation when one of the two grounds for revocation was unsupported by legally sufficient evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded