The Virginia Supreme Court reversed a contempt of court conviction against Katie Orndoff, who was sentenced to 10 days in jail for allegedly testifying while intoxicated as a Commonwealth witness in a domestic violence trial.

In an opinion issued Sept. 25, 2025, Justice Stephen R. McCullough wrote for the court in *Orndoff v. Commonwealth*, reversing the judgment of the Virginia Court of Appeals. The appeals court had affirmed the circuit court judgment en banc by an equally divided court without opinion.

Orndoff testified on Sept. 7, 2021, for the Commonwealth as the complaining witness in the jury trial of James Paige Phillips, who was indicted for felony domestic assault and battery of a family or household member, third or subsequent offense. The Circuit Court for Loudoun County held Orndoff in summary criminal contempt pursuant to Virginia Code § 18.2-456 for "misbehavior in the presence of the court" on the basis that she was intoxicated.

During direct examination, prosecutors questioned Orndoff about her relationship with Phillips, including their financial arrangements and living situation. When asked about sharing financial responsibilities, Orndoff testified without objection that she had bailed Phillips out of jail once. She was subsequently asked whether Phillips resided in her apartment with her, and she testified that Phillips resided with her "until he got arrested."

At that point, defense counsel objected to Orndoff's testimony, noting that the parties had agreed not to introduce information pertaining to Phillips' arrest and incarceration history. The circuit court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard Orndoff's statement. However, when she was later asked again about their sharing of financial responsibilities, Orndoff repeated that she paid Phillips' bail bond.

The circuit court's contempt finding centered on Orndoff's alleged intoxication during her testimony. Virginia Code § 18.2-456 allows courts to hold individuals in summary criminal contempt for "misbehavior in the presence of the court," which can include various forms of disruptive conduct that interferes with judicial proceedings.

Summary contempt proceedings allow judges to immediately address disruptive behavior in their courtrooms without the typical procedural safeguards of a full criminal trial. The power is designed to maintain order and ensure the proper administration of justice. However, the contempt power must be exercised carefully, particularly when it results in immediate incarceration.

Orndoff challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her summary contempt conviction on appeal. The case highlights the tension between a court's need to maintain order and dignity in proceedings while ensuring that contempt findings are supported by adequate evidence.

The Virginia Supreme Court's decision to reverse suggests the justices found the evidence insufficient to support a finding that Orndoff's alleged intoxication constituted "misbehavior in the presence of the court" warranting criminal sanctions. The court's analysis would likely have examined whether Orndoff's condition and behavior actually disrupted the proceedings or interfered with the administration of justice to a degree justifying contempt.

Witness intoxication presents complex legal issues for trial courts. While courts have broad authority to control their proceedings, they must balance this power against the rights of witnesses and parties. Intoxication alone may not always rise to the level of contemptible conduct, particularly if it does not substantially disrupt proceedings or prevent effective testimony.

The case also raises questions about how courts should handle situations where witnesses may be under the influence of substances during testimony. Courts must consider whether alternative measures might be more appropriate than summary contempt, such as continuing the proceedings to allow the witness to sober up or taking other steps to ensure reliable testimony.

The Virginia Court of Appeals' equally divided decision reflects the challenging nature of these issues. An equally divided court typically occurs when judges disagree on the proper resolution, resulting in an affirmance of the lower court's decision without establishing clear precedent.

The Supreme Court's reversal provides important guidance for Virginia courts on the standards for summary criminal contempt, particularly in cases involving alleged witness intoxication. The decision emphasizes that contempt findings must be supported by sufficient evidence and that courts must carefully consider whether conduct truly constitutes "misbehavior in the presence of the court."

The ruling protects witnesses from arbitrary contempt findings while still preserving courts' essential authority to maintain order in their proceedings. It reflects the careful balance courts must strike between ensuring orderly proceedings and protecting individual rights, even in cases involving potentially problematic witness behavior.

This decision will likely influence how Virginia trial courts approach similar situations in the future, providing clearer standards for when witness conduct rises to the level of criminal contempt warranting immediate sanctions.