Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42
Advisory Commission Comment.
Rule 42 tracks some of the language of the federal rule. No right to a jury trial exists upon a state charge of criminal contempt under present law establishing the penalties for the offense.
Advisory Commission Comment. [2014]
The reference in Rule 42(b)(2) to “a show cause order” was deleted. The burden of proff in a criminal contempt proceeding governed by subdivision (b) of the rule is on the district attorney or other attorney prosecuting the allegation of criminal contempt, and requiring an alleged contemner to “show cause” why he or she should not be held in contempt impermissibly placed the burden of proof on the alleged contemner.
Subdivision (b)(2) also was amended to add “an attorney representing a party in the case” in order to conform the rule to current practice. This rule also guides criminal contempt proceedings arising in civil cases that involve attorneys for the parties. See, e.g., Wilson v. Wilson, 984 S.W.2d 898 (Tenn. 1998).
Subdivision (b) also was amended to use the term “alleged contemner” throughout the subdivision, instead of only the word “defendant,” to prevent confusion by distinguishing the person charged with criminal contempt from a named defendant in a particiular case. The new term conforms the language of the rule to the terminology in Baker v. State, ___ W.W.3d___, ___, 2013 WL 4768309, at *6-7 (Tenn.2013).