Appeals Court Drops Contempt Conviction Of Potential Juror Who Refused To Wear Mask

By Carolina Journal Staff

• The North Carolina Court of Appeals has reversed the contempt conviction of a Harnett County man who refused to wear a mask when he showed up for jury duty at the local courthouse in 2022.
• Appellate judges agreed that Gregory Hahn did not disrupt court proceedings when he refused a courthouse employee’s request that he wear a mask in a jury assembly room.
• Appellate judges also questioned the Harnett courthouse’s mask requirement in October 2022, long after the state Supreme Court chief justice lifted COVID-19 emergency measures in June 2021.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has reversed a Harnett County trial judge’s 2022 decision to hold a potential juror in contempt and send him to jail for refusing to wear a mask.

Gregory Hahn’s encounter with Superior Court Judge Winston Gilchrist took place on Oct. 10, 2022. Hahn reported for jury duty that day at the Harnett County Courthouse.

“He was directed to the jury assembly room along with other potential jurors to await orientation,” according to the Appeals Court majority opinion. “While in this room, a courthouse employee asked Defendant to wear a mask, which he declined. The trial court was informed that Defendant would not wear a mask in the jury assembly room. After that, Defendant was removed from the jury assembly room during juror orientation and taken upstairs to a courtroom.”

“Once in the courtroom, the judge told Defendant that ‘it’s a requirement [to wear a mask] in this courtroom where you’re going to be a potential juror, and it’s a requirement while you’re seated with the other potential jurors downstairs in the jury assembly room,’” the opinion continued. “Defendant responded, ‘with all due respect, I will not be wearing a mask, sir.’ The judge informed Defendant, ‘if you decline to wear a mask, it’s contempt of court, which is punishable by up to thirty days in the Harnett County jail or a 500 dollar fine.’ To which, Defendant replied, ‘yes sir.’”

“Then, the judge charged Defendant with direct criminal contempt of court and asked if he had anything to say. Defendant responded, ‘no, sir.’ The judge found Defendant in direct criminal contempt of court and summarily punished him by imposing a twenty-four-hour jail sentence,” according to the Appeals Court opinion.

“Defendant was not a participant in ongoing proceedings in a courtroom. Rather, he reported to the courthouse to perform his civic duty as a potential juror,” wrote Judge Michael Stading. “Before Defendant’s presence was required in the courtroom for jury service, the judge summoned Defendant from the jury assembly room to his courtroom. Defendant complied with this direction.”

“Upon entering the courtroom, Defendant’s act of not wearing a mask did not disrupt the trial court’s proceedings. Even so, the judge ceased ongoing business in the courtroom upon learning that Defendant ‘declined to wear a mask’ in another room on a separate floor of the courthouse. In response to the inquiries posed by the judge to Defendant, he replied ‘yes, sir’ or ‘no sir.’ Throughout their exchange, Defendant was respectful to the trial court,” Stading wrote.

“We hold that Defendant’s refusal to wear a face mask was not a contemptuous act,” Stading wrote. “Thus, the trial court’s finding that Defendant ‘behaved in a contemptuous manner’ is not supported by competent evidence, and, in turn, does not support its conclusion of law.”

The Appeals Court questioned the Harnett court’s mask requirement itself. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby had ended all emergency directives related to the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2021.

“The authority underlying the local emergency order at issue was revoked,” Stading wrote. “Particularly troubling, unlike the emergency directives issued by the Chief Justice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-39(b)(2), the local emergency order contained no corresponding expiration date. If orders issued by the Chief Justice, necessitated by emergency, expire on the earlier event of a stated expiration date or thirty-day time limitation, then any such orders derived from this authority cannot exceed the same temporal restrictions provided by the General Assembly.”

“Our review of the State’s argument on these statutory grounds leads us to conclude that this particular administrative order was invalid,” Stading added.

The Appeals Court rejected state arguments that Hahn’s actions amounted to a willful act that could lead to a finding of contempt of court.

“There are no findings, nor evidence in the record sufficient to support findings, that Defendant could have known his discussion with the courthouse employee in the jury assembly room might directly interrupt proceedings or interfere with the court’s order or business,” Stading wrote. “In the absence of these findings, there is no support for the conclusion that Defendant’s conduct amounted to willful interference with the orderly functioning of a court session.”

Judge April Wood joined Stading’s opinion. Judge Jefferson Griffin agreed with the result but wrote separately.

“While mindful that a trial court judge’s ability to maintain order in their court room is paramount to the efficient administration of justice, … their discretion is not unfettered,” Griffin wrote.

“Mr. Hahn’s failure to wear a mask was unlikely to interrupt or interfere with any court business,’ Griffin added. “The record fails to show evidence that Mr. Hahn took any affirmative action to impede a court proceeding. Instead, the record reflects that Judge Gilchrist stopped the proceedings in his courtroom to address Mr. Hahn. Simply put, the facts presented here reflect an offense to sensibilities, not an ‘obstruction to the administration of justice.’”