Defendant accused of Insufficient Evidence in Contempt Case

In a significant legal turn of events, an individual has successfully appealed a contempt charge initially levied against them by the Akron Municipal Court. The appeal was filed by Donald W. Frum on January 28, 2026, challenging the court’s decision that found him guilty of contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in the Community Alternative Sentencing Center (CASC).

The case began when Mr. Frum was charged with multiple offenses, including disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, under the Akron Code of Ordinances (ACO). On August 5, 2024, he pleaded guilty to resisting arrest while other charges were dismissed. A magistrate recommended probation and a Summit Link Evaluation for Mr. Frum; however, this recommendation was never formally adopted by the trial judge as an order of the court. Despite this procedural oversight, Mr. Frum was directed to undergo an alcohol/drug evaluation at Oriana House.

On September 16, 2024, Oriana House reported that Mr. Frum failed to complete his chemical dependency assessment as per the Summit Link Order. Probation Officer Emily Smith corroborated this noncompliance by noting his absence from scheduled appointments and unresponsiveness to outreach efforts. Consequently, a complaint for contempt was issued against Mr. Frum for failing to adhere to probation terms and complete required treatment programs.

Despite initial dismissal of the contempt charge by a magistrate due to lack of acknowledgment from Mr. Frum on subsequent orders, further proceedings were initiated following continued noncompliance reports from Officer Smith in November 2024. At a hearing in April 2025, testimony highlighted Mr. Frum’s repeated failures to engage with mandated treatment services at Community Health Center (CHC), leading to his conviction for contempt based on credible evidence presented by Officer Smith.

Mr. Frum’s appeal centered around two key assignments of error: insufficient evidence supporting his indirect criminal contempt conviction and violation of due process rights due to reliance on grounds not specified in the original complaint. The City conceded that no valid court order existed reflecting Mr. Frum’s conviction or sentencing for probation—an essential element for upholding a contempt charge—thus supporting his appeal.

Ultimately, Judge Stevenson ruled in favor of Mr. Frum’s second assignment of error citing lack of sufficient evidence and remanded the case back to Akron Municipal Court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal on the contempt charge.

Representing Mr. Frum was attorney Joseph Shell while Deborah S. Matz served as Director of Law alongside Assistant Directors Brian D. Bremer and Kirsten L. Smith for the appellee City of Akron.