Criminal Contempt Generally

As our Supreme Court articulated in State v. Beeler:

A person charged with criminal contempt is presumed innocent, and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 399 (Tenn. 1996); Robinson v. Air Draulics Eng’g Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 912 (1964). Once convicted, however, the contemnor loses the presumption of innocence and bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of guilt on appeal. Black, 938 S.W.2d at 399; Robinson, 377 S.W.2d at 912. Thus, appellate courts do not review the evidence in a light favorable to the accused. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). A conviction will be reversed for insufficient evidence only when the facts in the record, and any inferences that may be drawn therefrom, are insufficient as a matter of law for a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Black, 938 S.W.2d at 399; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).

State v. Beeler, 387 S.W.3d 511, 519 (Tenn. 2012).

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court . . . appl[ies] an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical result, resolves the case on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or relies on reasoning that causes an injustice.” Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105 (Tenn. 2011).

Gates v. Switzer, No. M2021-01552-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2023). 

In reviewing a criminal contempt judgment, we apply the four-element test established in Konvalinka v. Chattanooga- Hamilton County Hospital Authority, 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008). Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 340 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (stating that the test established in Konvalinka applies to both civil and criminal contempt). The elements set out in Konvalinka require the following: (1) the order allegedly violated is lawful, (2) the order at issue is reasonably clear, (3) the defendant actually violated the order, and (4) the defendant “willfully” violated the order. Konvalinka, 249 S.W.3d at 355-57. As this Court has previously explained:

Stark v. Stark, No. W2021-01288-COA-R3-CV, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023). 

As our Supreme Court articulated in State v. Beeler:

A person charged with criminal contempt is presumed innocent, and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 399 (Tenn. 1996); Robinson v. Air Draulics Eng’g Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 912 (1964). Once convicted, however, the contemnor loses the presumption of innocence and bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of guilt on appeal. Black, 938 S.W.2d at 399; Robinson, 377 S.W.2d at 912. Thus, appellate courts do not review the evidence in a light favorable to the accused. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). A conviction will be reversed for insufficient evidence only when the facts in the record, and any inferences that may be drawn therefrom, are insufficient as a matter of law for a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Black, 938 S.W.2d at 399; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).

State v. Beeler, 387 S.W.3d 511, 519 (Tenn. 2012).

Nolan v. Nolan, No. W2021-01018-COA-R3-CV, p. 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2023). 

Once an adjudication of guilt has been entered on a count alleging criminal contempt, “the contemnor loses the presumption of innocence and bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of guilt on appeal.” Beeler, 387 S.W.3d at 519. The reviewing court gives the prevailing party the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). On appeal, this court determines whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Beeler, 387 S.W.3d at 519; Cottingham v. Cottingham, 193 S.W.3d 531, 538 (Tenn. 2006);Black, 938 S.W.2d at 399.

Bolton v. Bolton, No. M2022-00627-COA-R3-CV, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 8, 2023). 

If the defendant is found guilty by the trial court, the defendant has the burden on appeal of illustrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of guilt. Black, 938 S.W.2d at 399. When the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal contempt case is raised in an appeal, this court must review the record to determine if the evidence in the record supports the finding of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and “if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” we are to set aside the finding of guilt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) (directing that “findings of guilt in criminal actions shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”).

Pruitt v. Pruitt, 293 S.W.3d 537, 545-46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). Thus, appellate courts do not review the evidence in a light favorable to the accused. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d at 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). A conviction will be reversed for insufficient evidence only when the facts in the record, and any inferences that may be drawn therefrom, are insufficient as a matter of law for a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Black, 938 S.W.2d at 399; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e).