A contempt judgment issued against Hermann Advertiser Courier’s Cathi Utley on Jan. 29 was ruled vacated on March 16 when the Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Craig Hellmann’s 20th Circuit Court failed to enter an order of commitment against the advertising employee.

“The rules and case law governing commitment following a conviction for direct criminal contempt make clear that the convicting court must enter two separate documents signed by the judge into the record: a judgment of contempt and an order of commitment,” the Eastern District’s final Court Order began. “The record in this case contains a judgment of contempt that sets forth the facts and circumstances of the offense. However, the record does not contain an order or warrant of commitment. Because there is no order or warrant of commitment, the citation for contempt ‘did not meticulously follow these essential rules and procedures’ and is therefore void on its face.”

According to a petition submitted on Jan. 29 to the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, Utley’s attorney, Joseph P. Welch, wrote that on Jan. 21, during the capital murder trial of Kenneth Lee Simpson, Hellmann’s trial court alleged that Utley violated decorum orders.

Utley, previously listed as the Advertiser Courier’s general manager and currently listed as the advertising manager, was present at the trial. In the Judgment of Contempt, Utley was alleged to have, “brought her phone into the courtroom and used it to take pictures and a video of the proceedings.”

Hellmann’s trial court publicized decorum expectations for the public and media on Sept. 29, 2025, and  Dec. 4,  2025, which he alleges Utley violated by possessing and using her cellphone to take video and still photography inside the courtroom. According to previous reporting, prohibited devices included smart watches, smart glasses or wearable augmented-reality devices, any device capable of recording, transmitting, live- streaming audio, video, still images, or text, regardless of form or brand.

The Media Order prohibited audio, video and electronic coverage in any phase of the trial. However, still photography was listed as permitted “during non-evidentiary portions of the trial.”

“Still photographers shall not move about the courtroom while proceedings are in session, nor shall they engage in any movement that attracts undue attention. More than one photographer may not participate at one time unless approved in advance,” Number 14 of the Media order outlined. The court appointed approved photographers for each day. Utley claimed she was the pool photographer for Jan. 21, but the court held that a camera, not a cellphone, was required. 

The court acknowledges that the “contempt” ruling would have held if not for the absence of the paperwork.

Welch, representing Utley, alleged the following, with the 20th Circuit Court, represented by Attorney General’s Office, countering.

• Welch alleged his client was initially held in indirect contempt and not direct contempt. However, a transcription from Hellmann’s court confirmed Utley was being held in direct contempt from the beginning and not entitled to allocation.

• Welch wrote that a punishment should have been issued immediately or the court loses the authority to enter a sentence without a hearing. However, the court 20th Circuit Court countered that “summarily” references the rule and the statute to dispense the necessity of procedures, it does not restrict the court’s authority to a specific time.

• Welch presented that Utley’s behavior was not contemptuous because the recording of the procedure was authorized by the standing media order. However, the 20th Circuit Court countered that both the media and decorum orders prevented this use.

• Welch pushed that Utley’s five-day incarceration sentence was cruel and unusual due to her age and status as a “beloved member of the community.” However, the court ruled her age and status in the community were not exemptions to following decorum orders. Furthermore, the five-day term was fixed, as required by law.

• Welch asked on Jan. 29 that the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District set aside the judgment, vacate the finding of direct contempt, and release Utley, or remanded and assign to a different judge to proceed as indirect contempt.

Assistant Attorney General Andrew J. Clarke, on behalf of the Franklin County Sheriff Steven Pelton, called for the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District to lift the stay and order Utley to present herself for service of the contempt sentence.

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ruled on March 16 that the lack of paperwork forces the sentence vacated, even if the punishment was justified.

“The record before this court may have warranted a different result, however, the absence of an order or warrant of commitment dooms the circuit court’s judgment of contempt,” the order continued. “Furthermore, the lack of an order of commitment cannot be remedied after the fact.”

The Eastern District Court of Appeals noted that without the judgment of contempt without an order of commitment renders the ruling invalid.

“One without the other is deficient,” according to the Court Order. “Conclusion, now, therefore, the petition for habeas corpus is granted, the judgment of contempt is vacated, petitioner is released from the bond and is ordered discharged.”