State v. Hansen, 052820 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2019-0214

Docket Nº:2 CA-CR 2019-0214
Opinion Judge:STARING, PRESIDING JUDGE
Party Name:The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Patrick Hansen, Appellant.
Attorney:Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Michael T. O'Toole, Chief Counsel By Heather A. Mosher, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Judge Panel:Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
Case Date:May 28, 2020
Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

The State of Arizona, Appellee,

v.

Patrick Hansen, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0214

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

May 28, 2020

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201802739 The Honorable Stephen F. McCarville, Judge

Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Michael T. O'Toole, Chief Counsel By Heather A. Mosher, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee

Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Appellant

Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

STARING, PRESIDING JUDGE

¶1 Patrick Hansen appeals from his conviction and sentence for criminal contempt of court, arguing insufficiency of evidence. We disagree and affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 In determining whether sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, we view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict. State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, ¶ 17 (2006).

¶3 In 2018, Hansen was involved in a dependency action concerning his children. At an initial hearing in March, multiple people in the courtroom "were either recording or had their cell phones out" and the juvenile court directed everyone to put their phones in a pile in the courtroom to prevent anyone from recording the proceedings. The court directed Hansen to turn off any recording devices he had in his possession and explained that Rule 122, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., prohibited recording juvenile court matters and that "the only information that [it was] concerned about is information that actually names the children and parties." The court also gave the following admonition: We'll start us out with my standard admonishment and this applies to every single person in the courtroom, which is that these hearings are presumptively open to the public unless there is good cause shown or established that they should be closed. But just because they are open to the public does not mean that any information that's confidential about the children, placement, caregivers, or those involved in the case, all of that information is confidential. If it is disclosed outside these proceedings, such as posting on the Internet or on Facebook, that this Court could ultimately hold a contempt hearing and issue the appropriate sanctions in that regard.

The court further admonished Hansen not to post any audio recordings or photographs of his visits with his children on the internet or social media.

¶4 At a placement hearing in May, the juvenile court again admonished everyone in the courtroom...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP