Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Defendants facing criminal contempt are entitled to the same statutory protections as other criminal defendants, including the right to the appointment of mental health experts, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled in a Tuesday reversal.
In June 2021, appellant-defendant Russell Finnegan was charged with indirect criminal contempt of court and was ordered to show cause as to why he shouldn’t be held in contempt. The Pulaski Circuit Court’s show-cause order said Finnegan, proceeding pro se, had “filed a document … that is obnoxious, profane, and attempts to undermine the Court’s authority, justice, independence, and dignity.”
Following a hearing, Special Judge John Potter found Finnegan in indirect criminal contempt. The court then began to receive “vulgar, misogynistic, inappropriate and harassing correspondence” from Finnegan.
In October 2021, Potter ordered Finnegan to show cause as to why he should not again be held in indirect criminal contempt of court.
During a hearing in January 2023 with Special Judge David Chidester presiding, Finnegan’s counsel alerted the trial court that there were mental health issues and that they were in the process of having a mental health evaluation completed in an unrelated criminal case that was also pending in the court.
A few weeks later, Finnegan filed notice of intent to raise the defense of mental disease or defect and requested that the trial court appoint medical personnel to evaluate his mental health and testify at the contempt hearing. His counsel also filed a motion for continuance to allow for more time for the results of the evaluation.
Chidester denied the motion for continuance and never ruled on the notice.
Following the final contempt hearing, Chidester issued an order finding Finnegan in indirect criminal contempt. The trial court imposed a sanction of almost six months in the Department of Correction.
Finnegan then appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in failing to appoint medical personnel to evaluate his mental health and testify at his criminal contempt hearing.
The appellate court agreed.
According to the COA, Chidester had remarked that he didn’t believe Finnegan was mentally ill based on prior observations and interactions. And for its part, the state said Finnegan “was simply ‘not entitled’ to file that notice and obtain the statutory mental health evaluations because a contempt proceeding is not a ‘trial of a criminal case’ as contemplated by Indiana Code Section 35-36-2-2.”
But determining a criminal contempt proceeding is, in fact, a “trial of a criminal case” under I.C. 35-36-2-2, the COA held, “Accordingly, defendants like Finnegan, who are held to answer for criminal contempt and face the same array of punishments as do other criminal defendants, are entitled to the same statutory protections afforded other criminal defendants, including the right to file a notice of insanity defense and obtain the appointment of appropriate experts to testify at the contempt proceedings.”
The court rejected the state’s alternative assertion that any such error was harmless. The state also suggested Chidester did not need assistance from experts because he was able to and did determine Finnegan did not suffer from a mental disease or defect.
“Be that as it may, Finnegan should have had the opportunity to obtain and offer the requested expert evaluations, and it would have then been the trial court’s prerogative to disregard that testimony if it was unpersuasive or inconsistent with other probative evidence,” Judge Terry Crone wrote. “Under the circumstances presented, we simply cannot say with confidence that the absence of expert opinion testimony had no bearing on the outcome of this case.”
Judges Patricia Riley and Paul Mathias concurred in the case of Russell G. Finnegan v. State of Indiana, 23A-MI-442, which was remanded for further proceedings.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.