People v. Johnson & Johnson

Defendants appealed trial court judgment holding them in direct criminal contempt, contending that the trial court erred in holding the defendants in contempt when it was necessary to consider extrinsic evidence to reach a factual conclusion as to whether defendant’s absence from trial was the result of willful misconduct. The appellate court agreed and reversed, noting that in order to find defendant in direct contempt the trial court relied on proof of matters outside of its immediate knowledge and, as a result, any contempt finding could only be indirect and that the trial court did not follow the procedural safeguards required for entry of indirect contempt. (WELCH and CATES, concurring)