Direct criminal contempt The trial court erred when it held defendant in direct criminal contempt after he tested positive for an impairing substance during a criminal court proceeding. Where there was nothing in the record to show defendant lied to the court about taking an impairing substance, or that he was impaired during the proceeding, or that he intentionally caused a delay in the process for testing him for an impaired substance, the trial court erred in concluding defendant committed direct criminal contempt. 

The trial court held the defendant in direct criminal contempt after refusing to accept the defendant’s plea in criminal court because the defendant tested positive for drug use during the plea proceeding. The trial court concluded that the defendant caused a delay in the court proceedings by telling the court that he would not test positive for an impairing substance and by intentionally delaying the drug testing process. 



The court of appeals reversed the contempt order after concluding that the record showed the defendant admitted to taking an impairing substance on the day of the proceeding, did not say he would not test positive for a substance, and was not impaired during the proceeding. The court of appeals also held that the defendant could not be in direct criminal contempt for intentionally delaying the testing process because the testing occurred outside of the courtroom and outside the presence of the judge.