Criminal: Evidence supports contempt conviction

Where the trial judge found appellant guilty of indirect contempt of court after finding that he “‘was smirking and walking towards’” the brother of the man that appellant killed, there was sufficient evidence to support the contempt conviction.

Overview

Meadows, the appellant, fatally shot C.R., fled the scene, was later arrested and confessed to the shooting. He was charged with second-degree murder and various drug crimes.

“Meadows appeared with his attorney before the trial court and pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in connection with the death of C.R. As part of his plea agreement, the Commonwealth agreed to nolle prosequi some of Meadows’s other related charges, including second-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony — and also agreed to a maximum of seven years of active incarceration.

“Footage from the courthouse security cameras showed that when Meadows and his family exited the courtroom, they proceeded down the hallway, passed through a double doorway, turned to the right, and then disappeared around the corner toward the descending escalator beyond the view of the courtroom entrance.”

A short time later, C.R.’s family, including his brother, Robert Ross, left the courtroom and “gathered in the hallway right outside the courtroom. …

“Ross then recounted that he ‘wandered off down the hallway just a little bit to get a little fresh air ‘cause everybody was talking, but we were all still in that same area.’

“As Ross reached the double doorway — the same double doorway that Meadows and his family had passed through before walking toward the descending escalator that led to the courthouse exit — Ross encountered Meadows returning to the double doorway.

“[T]he trial judge, after watching the courthouse security camera footage and hearing witness testimony, found that Meadows ‘was smirking and walking towards Mr. Ross.’”

Ross reacted violently. Family members restrained him.

“The judge emphasized that ‘what’s telling to the court is the behavior of the defendant [Meadows] when Mr. Ross is restrained. And that behavior is looking straight at him [Ross], not changing his [Meadows’s] gait, walking towards the area where Mr. Ross is.’

“The trial judge further found that Meadows’s behavior ‘was calculated to lead to violent reaction in the recipient; and for that reason I find him in contempt.’”

Meadows appeals.

Analysis

During the contempt hearing, “Ross acknowledged that, during Meadows’s earlier bond hearing in January 2020, Ross had stormed out of the courtroom when the trial judge had granted Meadows bond, prompting the trial judge to summon Ross back for further discussion.

“Ross apologized to the trial judge for his behavior at that time. …

“The record demonstrates that the encounter between Meadows and Ross occurred inside the courthouse very near the courtroom where Ross and his family members had just witnessed Meadows plead guilty to the brutal killing of Ross’s younger brother, C.R.

“The encounter also followed counsel for Meadows presenting a plea deal that, if approved by the trial court, would have had some of Meadows’s other charges dismissed and his sentence capped at seven years of active incarceration.

“Ross testified that Meadows made eye contact with him, smirked at him, and approached him in the hallway near the courtroom following this plea hearing on July 11, 2022.

“The security camera footage and Meadows’s own testimony furthermore established that Meadows stood basically stationary in the hallway near the double doorway and continued to watch the fracas unfold as Ross’s family restrained Ross, lifted him, and physically carried him away and as courthouse deputies rushed out to the hallway and then escorted a visibly upset Ross and his family members away from Meadows.

“Meadows stood there and just stared at Ross and his family members for nearly a full 15 seconds and only began to truly move away from the fracas once prompted to do so by Meadows’s own family members when they arrived to retrieve him.

“Accordingly, the trial judge concluded, ‘Even in that brief instance, that’s enough for me to find that his [Meadows’s] behavior was calculated to lead to violent reaction in the recipient; and for that reason I find him in contempt.’ …

“[A]fter hearing testimony in the case and viewing the security camera footage of the confrontation, the trial court then accepted Robert Ross’s testimony that Meadows made eye contact with him as Meadows walked toward him and then smirked at him, prompting Ross’s reaction.

“As the trial judge explained and found, ‘I think any reasonable recipient who has had a family member killed by the defendant [Meadows] who witnesses this would react violently.’

“Furthermore, in accepting Ross’s testimony, the trial court implicitly rejected Meadows’s self-serving testimony that he did not smile or smirk at Ross, and the trial court implicitly found that Meadows was lying to conceal his guilt. …

“The trial judge also reasonably inferred that Ross’s ‘problem slamming doors in the past’ — namely, during Meadows’s January 2020 bond hearing where Ross stormed out of the courtroom and slammed the door after Meadows was released on bond — gave Meadows ‘knowledge that there’s volatility and grieving family members as a result of him [Meadows] killing their family member.’

“Meadows’s own father, Jay Meadows, testified about how he witnessed and remembered Robert Ross’s volatile emotional outburst after the judge granted his son bond in January 2020.”

Conclusion

“[T]he trial court was not plainly wrong or without evidence in its finding of fact that Meadows intended to evoke a violent response from Ross, that such a response did occur, and that ‘there were a lot of court resources utilized to address it.’

“Meadows’s act of returning to the area outside the courtroom where C.R.’s family members had gathered and then smirking at Ross as Meadows walked toward him recklessly provoked Ross and caused him to lose control of his emotions — as Ross had just watched Meadows plead guilty to the killing of Ross’s younger brother.

“Furthermore, the record reflects that Meadows remained standing there in the hallway, where he was continuing to stare at Ross after Ross had to be restrained and pulled down the hallway away from Meadows.

“He simply stood there, watched, and stared at the now restrained, flailing Ross as the situation unfolded and as courthouse deputies scrambled to defuse it, move Ross away, and quell the disruption.

“Given the totality of the circumstances here and all of the specific evidence in this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it found Meadows guilty of indirect contempt.”

Affirmed.

Meadows v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1096-22-1, March 19, 2024. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Beales; Raphael, dissenting) From the City of Virginia Beach Circuit Court (Frucci). James O. Broccoletti (Zoby & Broccoletti, P.C., on brief), for appellant. David A. Mick, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 024-7-091, 27 pp.