IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA24-152
Filed 19 November 2024
Craven County, Nos. 23CRS734, 23CRS735
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DARREN LANCASTER
Appeal by Defendant from orders entered 27 September 2023 by Judge Joshua
W. Willey, Jr., in Craven County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9
October 2024.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Thomas J. Campbell, for the State-Appellee.
John W. Moss for Defendant-Appellant.
COLLINS, Judge.
Defendant Darren Lancaster appeals from orders entered upon his
adjudication of two counts of direct criminal contempt. Defendant argues that his
behavior warranted only one contempt adjudication. Because N.C. Gen. Stat. §
5A-11(a) is unambiguous and Defendant’s contemptuous behavior consisted of two
separate outbursts, we find no error.
I. Background
Defendant was present in the courtroom on 27 September 2023 for a pre-trial STATE V. LANCASTER
Opinion of the Court
hearing on unrelated matters. Defendant’s counsel asked the court to inquire of
Defendant whether he wished to proceed pro se, as Defendant had filed several pro
se motions on the matter. Defendant expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney but
ultimately stated that he wished to proceed with counsel. Defendant then asserted
that he wished to have his case heard on 9 October 2023, less than two weeks later.
Defendant’s counsel noted that he had not yet received discovery from the State and
told the trial court that he could not endorse a 9 October trial date. The trial court
instructed the State to send discovery and continued Defendant’s case until 28
November 2023.
Defendant, dissatisfied with his lawyer and his new court date, urged the trial
court to reconsider. The following interaction ensued:
THE DEFENDANT: And I’m saying, I mean, if he don’t want to represent me on October 9, I’ll represent myself.
THE COURT: Well, if you want to fire him, you can. I’m not going to set the case for October 9th.
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck y’all anyway --
THE COURT: All right.
THE DEFENDANT: -- fuck y’all and trumping all over my rights --
THE COURT: Wait a minute, sir --
THE DEFENDANT: I’m good, man --
THE COURT: Sir, sir. You’re not good.
THE DEFENDANT: I’m good. I mean, y’all violate all a
-2- STATE V. LANCASTER
man’s rights. You know what I’m saying? I had a trial date set. You know what I’m saying? How -- set by another judge. You just did that, and you’re going to just say “F” him because -- just go sit. Man, I’m good --
THE COURT: You already used the “F” word. You’re not good. I’m -- I’m --
THE DEFENDANT: It’s okay. It’s okay. You already violated a man’s rights --
THE COURT: It is not okay. Restrain him and get him in front of me.
I’m considering holding you in contempt of court for thirty days --
THE DEFENDANT: Restrain me for what?
THE COURT: For using profanity in this courtroom. Anything you wish to say in response to that?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: All right. The Court finds the defendant’s use of profanity in this courtroom has disrupted the proceedings. He is found to be in contempt of court --
THE DEFENDANT: And I’ll appeal that. Let’s go, man.
THE COURT: He will do 30 days.
THE DEFENDANT: I’ll appeal that. Let’s go, man. I don’t want to hear this shit. I don’t want to hear this shit --
THE COURT: All right. He’s again used profanity in this courtroom. I’m considering holding you in contempt for another 30 days for your continued use of profanity. Anything you wish to say?
THE DEFENDANT: Let me go, man.
-3- STATE V. LANCASTER
THE DEFENDANT: I don’t want to hear nothing you guys say.
THE COURT: The Court finds him in contempt of court a second time. Thirty days at the expiration of the first one.
THE DEFENDANT: And I will appeal all of that. Contempt -- I’ll appeal all that.
The trial court entered a written order for each contempt adjudication. In the
first order, the trial court found that Defendant “use[d] profanity in the courtroom
causing a disruption in the courtroom and impeding [the] administration of justice”
and sentenced Defendant to thirty days’ imprisonment. In the second order, the trial
court found that Defendant “use[d] profanity in the courtroom for a second time after
having been found in contempt causing a disruption in the courtroom and impeding
[the] administration of justice” and sentenced Defendant to a consecutive term of
thirty days’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
II. Discussion
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by adjudging him in contempt of
court on two separate counts. Specifically, Defendant argues that the term “behavior”
in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11(a) is ambiguous because his repeated use of profanity
within a short period of time “could reasonably be interpreted as one episode of
contempt.” We find no merit in Defendant’s argument.
This Court reviews a trial court’s contempt order for “whether there is
competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether the
-4- STATE V. LANCASTER
findings support the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment.” State v. Mastor, 243
N.C. App. 476, 480-81 (2015) (citation omitted). “The trial court’s conclusions of law
drawn from the findings of fact are reviewable de novo.” Curran v. Barefoot, 183 N.C.
App. 331, 335 (2007) (citation omitted). Moreover, issues of statutory construction
are conclusions of law to be reviewed de novo. State v. Patterson, 266 N.C. App. 567,
570 (2019).
“When interpreting statutes, our principal goal is to effectuate the purpose of
the legislature.” State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 473, 477 (2004) (quotation marks and
citation omitted). “When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there
is no room for judicial construction, and the courts must give it its plain and definite
meaning.” Id. (citation omitted).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11(a) provides, in pertinent part,
each of the following is criminal contempt:
(1) Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings.
(2) Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court in its immediate view and presence and directly tending to impair the respect due its authority.
(3) Willful disobedience of, resistance to, or interference with a court’s lawful process, order, directive, or instruction or its execution.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 5A-11(a)(1)-(3) (2023).
-5- STATE V. LANCASTER
“Behavior” is defined as “the way in which someone conducts oneself or
behaves” or “an instance of such behavior.” Behavior, Merriam-Webster.com,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/behavior (last visited November 5,
2024). Our criminal contempt statute was enacted to protect trial courts’ ability to
keep peace in the courtroom and punish those who intentionally interfere with the
administration of justice. See File v. File, 195 N.C. App. 562, 565-66 (2009). “A person
guilty of any of the acts or omissions enumerated in [this section] may be punished
for contempt because such acts or omissions have a direct tendency to interrupt the
proceedings of the court or to impair the respect due to its authority.” Luther v.
Luther, 234 N.C. 429, 431 (1951).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA24-152
Filed 19 November 2024
Craven County, Nos. 23CRS734, 23CRS735
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DARREN LANCASTER
Appeal by Defendant from orders entered 27 September 2023 by Judge Joshua
W. Willey, Jr., in Craven County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9
October 2024.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Thomas J. Campbell, for the State-Appellee.
John W. Moss for Defendant-Appellant.
COLLINS, Judge.
Defendant Darren Lancaster appeals from orders entered upon his
adjudication of two counts of direct criminal contempt. Defendant argues that his
behavior warranted only one contempt adjudication. Because N.C. Gen. Stat. §
5A-11(a) is unambiguous and Defendant’s contemptuous behavior consisted of two
separate outbursts, we find no error.
I. Background
Defendant was present in the courtroom on 27 September 2023 for a pre-trial STATE V. LANCASTER
Opinion of the Court
hearing on unrelated matters. Defendant’s counsel asked the court to inquire of
Defendant whether he wished to proceed pro se, as Defendant had filed several pro
se motions on the matter. Defendant expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney but
ultimately stated that he wished to proceed with counsel. Defendant then asserted
that he wished to have his case heard on 9 October 2023, less than two weeks later.
Defendant’s counsel noted that he had not yet received discovery from the State and
told the trial court that he could not endorse a 9 October trial date. The trial court
instructed the State to send discovery and continued Defendant’s case until 28
November 2023.
Defendant, dissatisfied with his lawyer and his new court date, urged the trial
court to reconsider. The following interaction ensued:
THE DEFENDANT: And I’m saying, I mean, if he don’t want to represent me on October 9, I’ll represent myself.
THE COURT: Well, if you want to fire him, you can. I’m not going to set the case for October 9th.
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck y’all anyway --
THE COURT: All right.
THE DEFENDANT: -- fuck y’all and trumping all over my rights --
THE COURT: Wait a minute, sir --
THE DEFENDANT: I’m good, man --
THE COURT: Sir, sir. You’re not good.
THE DEFENDANT: I’m good. I mean, y’all violate all a
-2- STATE V. LANCASTER
man’s rights. You know what I’m saying? I had a trial date set. You know what I’m saying? How -- set by another judge. You just did that, and you’re going to just say “F” him because -- just go sit. Man, I’m good --
THE COURT: You already used the “F” word. You’re not good. I’m -- I’m --
THE DEFENDANT: It’s okay. It’s okay. You already violated a man’s rights --
THE COURT: It is not okay. Restrain him and get him in front of me.
I’m considering holding you in contempt of court for thirty days --
THE DEFENDANT: Restrain me for what?
THE COURT: For using profanity in this courtroom. Anything you wish to say in response to that?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: All right. The Court finds the defendant’s use of profanity in this courtroom has disrupted the proceedings. He is found to be in contempt of court --
THE DEFENDANT: And I’ll appeal that. Let’s go, man.
THE COURT: He will do 30 days.
THE DEFENDANT: I’ll appeal that. Let’s go, man. I don’t want to hear this shit. I don’t want to hear this shit --
THE COURT: All right. He’s again used profanity in this courtroom. I’m considering holding you in contempt for another 30 days for your continued use of profanity. Anything you wish to say?
THE DEFENDANT: Let me go, man.
-3- STATE V. LANCASTER
THE DEFENDANT: I don’t want to hear nothing you guys say.
THE COURT: The Court finds him in contempt of court a second time. Thirty days at the expiration of the first one.
THE DEFENDANT: And I will appeal all of that. Contempt -- I’ll appeal all that.
The trial court entered a written order for each contempt adjudication. In the
first order, the trial court found that Defendant “use[d] profanity in the courtroom
causing a disruption in the courtroom and impeding [the] administration of justice”
and sentenced Defendant to thirty days’ imprisonment. In the second order, the trial
court found that Defendant “use[d] profanity in the courtroom for a second time after
having been found in contempt causing a disruption in the courtroom and impeding
[the] administration of justice” and sentenced Defendant to a consecutive term of
thirty days’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
II. Discussion
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by adjudging him in contempt of
court on two separate counts. Specifically, Defendant argues that the term “behavior”
in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11(a) is ambiguous because his repeated use of profanity
within a short period of time “could reasonably be interpreted as one episode of
contempt.” We find no merit in Defendant’s argument.
This Court reviews a trial court’s contempt order for “whether there is
competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether the
-4- STATE V. LANCASTER
findings support the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment.” State v. Mastor, 243
N.C. App. 476, 480-81 (2015) (citation omitted). “The trial court’s conclusions of law
drawn from the findings of fact are reviewable de novo.” Curran v. Barefoot, 183 N.C.
App. 331, 335 (2007) (citation omitted). Moreover, issues of statutory construction
are conclusions of law to be reviewed de novo. State v. Patterson, 266 N.C. App. 567,
570 (2019).
“When interpreting statutes, our principal goal is to effectuate the purpose of
the legislature.” State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 473, 477 (2004) (quotation marks and
citation omitted). “When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there
is no room for judicial construction, and the courts must give it its plain and definite
meaning.” Id. (citation omitted).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11(a) provides, in pertinent part,
each of the following is criminal contempt:
(1) Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings.
(2) Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court in its immediate view and presence and directly tending to impair the respect due its authority.
(3) Willful disobedience of, resistance to, or interference with a court’s lawful process, order, directive, or instruction or its execution.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 5A-11(a)(1)-(3) (2023).
-5- STATE V. LANCASTER
“Behavior” is defined as “the way in which someone conducts oneself or
behaves” or “an instance of such behavior.” Behavior, Merriam-Webster.com,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/behavior (last visited November 5,
2024). Our criminal contempt statute was enacted to protect trial courts’ ability to
keep peace in the courtroom and punish those who intentionally interfere with the
administration of justice. See File v. File, 195 N.C. App. 562, 565-66 (2009). “A person
guilty of any of the acts or omissions enumerated in [this section] may be punished
for contempt because such acts or omissions have a direct tendency to interrupt the
proceedings of the court or to impair the respect due to its authority.” Luther v.
Luther, 234 N.C. 429, 431 (1951).
Defendant was twice adjudged in direct criminal contempt for his use of
profanity in the courtroom. Defendant’s first contempt adjudication was based on the
following exchange:
THE DEFENDANT: And I’m saying, I mean, if he don’t want to represent me on October 9, I’ll represent myself.
THE COURT: Well, if you want to fire him, you can. I’m not going to set the case for October 9th.
THE DEFENDANT: -- fuck y’all and trumping all over my rights --
Defendant was adjudicated in contempt for his use of profanity in response to the
trial court’s refusal to grant Defendant an earlier court date. The outburst
-6- STATE V. LANCASTER
interrupted court proceedings and impeded the trial court’s administration of justice.
See File, 195 N.C. App. at 565; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11(a)(1). Defendant noted his
appeal from this contempt adjudication.
Defendant’s second contempt adjudication was based on his reaction to the first
contempt conviction:
THE COURT: All right. The Court finds the defendant’s use of profanity in this courtroom has disrupted the proceedings. He is found to be in contempt of court --
THE DEFENDANT: I’ll appeal that. Let’s go, man. I don’t want to hear this shit. I don’t want to hear this shit --
As Defendant’s behavior in response to his first contempt adjudication further
interrupted court proceedings, the trial court found Defendant in direct criminal
contempt again to preserve the administration of justice. See id. Defendant noted
his appeal from this second contempt adjudication.
Each of Defendant’s outbursts were separate episodes of behavior delineated
by separate adjudications of contempt under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11(a) and separate
notices of appeal. The statute is unambiguous, and Defendant’s attempt to compress
two separate incidents of contempt into one would in effect give him a “free ride” on
the second of the two instances of profanity uttered to the court. That result does not
comport with the language of the statute or the legislature’s purpose in enacting it.
-7- STATE V. LANCASTER
Furthermore, Defendant’s reliance on extra jurisdictional jurisprudence interpreting
different statutes as applied to different factual circumstances than those before us
is neither binding nor persuasive.
III. Conclusion
The trial court did not err by adjudicating Defendant of two counts of criminal
contempt.
NO ERROR.
Chief Judge DILLON and Judge CARPENTER concur.
-8-