Court of Appeals of Virginia Reverses Contempt Conviction for Defendant Who Said, “They’ll Never Finds Your Body” To Husband’s New Wife
Section 18.2-456(A)(2) of the Annotated Virginia Code provides that
The courts and judges may issue attachments for contempt, and punish them summarily, only in the following cases:….Violence, or threats of violence, to a judge or officer of the court, or to a juror, witness, or party going to, attending, or returning from the court, for or in respect of any act or proceeding had, or to be had, in such court
So, who qualifies as a “witness” under this contempt statute? That was the question of first impression addressed by the Court of Appeals of Virginia in its recent opinion in Ford v. Commonwealth, 2025 WL 2774144 (Va. App. 2025).
In Ford ,
On February 28, 2023, Michelle Ford (“Michelle”) attended a hearing between her husband, Christopher Ford (“Christopher”), and his ex-wife, Heather Ford (“Ford”), the appellant, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (“JDR”) for the City of Virginia Beach. The hearing was conducted to determine whether Christopher had failed to pay Ford court-ordered child support. Michelle accompanied Christopher to the hearing “for emotional support.”
During the entire hearing, Michelle sat in the third bench from the door at the back of the courtroom. After the hearing was concluded, Ford passed by Michelle and said, “They’ll never find your body.” Upset, Michelle responded, “You’re so disrespectful. Don’t talk to me.”
Shortly thereafter, Michelle filed a criminal complaint with a Virginia Beach magistrate, who then issued a misdemeanor warrant for disturbing the peace in violation of Virginia Beach City Ordinance 23-10 and Code § 18.2-415. On May 22, 2023, the General District Court for the City of Virginia Beach found Ford guilty of “contempt of court [§] 18.2-456(A)(2) threaten witness.”
After she was convicted, Ford appealed, claiming that Michelle was not a “witness” under the contempt statute. In response, the Court of Appeals concluded “that for the purposes of Code § 18.2-456(A)(2), a person qualifies as a witness if he or she is testifying, has testified, or is or was reasonably expected by a party to testify in a proceeding before a court.”
Applying this test to the case at hand, the court reversed Ford’s contempt conviction, concluding that:
Michelle’s testimony only established that she was not even sure of what the hearing was for, but that she was only there as moral support for her now-husband. Furthermore, the Commonwealth never elicited testimony from Christopher to find out if he expected his current wife to provide any testimony relevant in his JDR proceeding. He only remarked that Michelle was there “to support” him. This evidence does not establish that Michelle had testified or had been reasonably expected to testify by a party. The inferences the Commonwealth attempts to draw here are nothing more than speculation and not based on the scant evidence established at trial.