Bailey, J.
Case Summary
Mitchell Carroll (“Carroll”) was charged with a number of offenses in the Grant Superior Court. In response to Carroll’s behavior during hearings conducted both by video conference and with Carroll physically present in the courtroom, the trial court found Carroll to be in direct contempt of court and, as a result, ordered Carroll incarcerated for ninety days. Carroll appeals.
We affirm.
Issues
Carroll raises two issues for our review. We restate these as:
I. Whether, because Carroll’s conduct occurred while he was not physically present in the courtroom, a contempt citation is barred under Indiana law; and
II. Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Carroll’s conduct on two occasions was contumacious.
Facts and Procedural History
Carroll was arrested and charged in the Grant Superior Court with several criminal offenses. The trial court conducted an initial hearing in Carroll’s case on July 7, 2015. Carroll was not transported to the courtroom for this hearing. Instead, Carroll (along with numerous other defendants that day) participated in the hearing by means of a video conferencing system connecting the Grant County Jail with the courtroom. Carroll was represented by a public defender at the hearing.
During the initial hearing, Carroll answered the trial court’s questions concerning his name and age. From that point, Carroll ceased cooperating with the court, instead cutting across the trial court’s questions on numerous occasions. …
….
As the trial court continued to issue its rulings on Carroll’s motion for new counsel and the question of speedy trial waiver, Carroll continued to interrupt the court and threatened to sue the court. The trial court then increased the total term of imprisonment for the contempt citation to ninety days “[f]or the continued interruption.” …
….
The court found that Carroll’s conduct continued to “impede communications and waste Court time,” and that Carroll’s conduct at the afternoon hearing precluded the court from issuing advisements of rights related to the change of trial counsel. … Entering its finding of contempt, the trial court reaffirmed its oral statement that Carroll would serve a ninety-day period of incarceration as sanction for contempt of court.
New counsel was appointed to represent Carroll at trial and on appeal of the contempt order. This appeal ensued.
Direct Contempt for Conduct on Video
Carroll’s first contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion when it cited him for contempt related to his conduct during the video-based hearing on July 7, 2015, because a video-based hearing is not a setting in which direct contempt can occur. Carroll rests this argument on the language of the Indiana Code, which provides:
(1) by creating any noise or confusion;
(2) in a court of record; and
(3) while the court is open for and engaged in the transaction of business;
is considered guilty of a direct contempt of court. Ind. Code § 34-47-2-1(a).
Carroll draws our attention specifically to the second element, Subsection 34-47-2-1(a)(2). Carroll argues that because he was not physically in the courtroom on July 7, 2015, his conduct was not “in a court of record.”
We disagree. …
….
Conclusion
That Carroll’s conduct occurred during a video hearing, and not in a courtroom, did not preclude application of the contempt statute. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in twice finding that Carroll was in contempt of court.
Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.