R.I. high court upholds contempt finding against man for swearing in court

PROVIDENCE — The state Supreme Court on Friday upheld a criminal contempt finding against a 67-year-old North Smithfield man for swearing in court, but sent the case back to the judge for reconsideration of the two-year sentence she imposed.

Joseph Lamontagne appeared before Superior Court Judge Netti C. Vogel on July 18, 2017, for sentencing after being convicted of first-degree robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling.

Vogel determined that Lamontagne’s age, numerous encounters with police and refusal to take responsibility for his actions made him a poor candidate for rehabilitation. In doing so, Vogel exceeded sentencing benchmarks, doling out a 35-year sentence, with 23 years to serve.

“‘That’s justice? … That’s [expletive],” Lamontagne cried out, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“‘Excuse me,’” Vogel said.

“‘That’s not justice,’” Lamontagne said.

Vogel responded by finding Lamontagne in contempt of court and sentencing him to a consecutive three years at the Adult Correctional Institutions.

Vogel said that Lamontagne’s outburst was “direct in its adverse effect on the authority and prestige of the [c]ourt” and that she had seen “all essential elements of misconduct,” the ruling said. Immediate punishment was essential “to prevent demoralization of the court’s authority before the public,” Vogel said.

Vogel then gave Lamontagne an opportunity to address the court, and he apologized, saying he didn’t mean any disrespect. He added, however, that he did not feel that he had been “`treated properly in this courtroom,’” the ruling said.

Vogel took a year off the contempt sentence in consideration of his apology, giving him a consecutive two-year term instead.

Lamontagne appealed, arguing the sentence was “unlawful and unconstitutional.” He argued through his lawyer, Camille McKenna, that his conduct did not obstruct court proceedings and wasn’t flagrantly disrespectful to Vogel, and that he was denied a chance to defend himself before she made the finding of contempt.

In ruling, the high court found that U.S. Supreme Court precedent dictates that a defendant may seek a jury trial for any criminal contempt sentence of more than six months and that Vogel’s consecutive two-year sentence was “clearly beyond” the six-month maximum.

But the court found that Vogel did not abuse her discretion in holding Lamontagne in contempt.

“However, while acknowledging that this is a close case, it is the trial justice who `has had an opportunity to appraise witness demeanor and to take into account other realities that cannot be grasped from a reading of a cold record,’” Justice Gilbert Indeglia wrote for the court.

The court found that Lamontagne’s comments were specifically directed at the court and that therefore Vogel was within her authority to punish him to “`prevent demoralization of the court’s authority[.]’”

The court ordered Vogel to reduce the contempt sentence to six months or, if not, state prosecutors must file a criminal complaint. Lamontagne then could choose to have a jury decide his guilt or innocence with respect to the criminal contempt charge, the court said.