Section 38.13 is the criminal counterpart to contempt of court. It is charged after outbursts in courtrooms, disruptions at hearings, and disturbances at administrative proceedings.
What the Statute Says
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally hinders an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous behavior or disturbance.
(b) A person commits an offense if he recklessly hinders an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous behavior or disturbance and continues after explicit official request to desist.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
The Two Theories
Intentional hindering requires proof that the accused acted with the conscious objective to hinder the proceeding. Anger, distress, and emotional reaction — common in family and criminal courtrooms — are not the same as intent to obstruct.
Reckless hindering has a lower mental state but adds a requirement: the conduct must continue after an explicit official request to desist. Without a warning in the record, this theory fails. Whether a warning was given, when, and whether the accused heard it, are frequently disputed and often resolved by the court's own recording.
Contempt and Prosecution Are Different Things
A judge may hold a person in direct contempt immediately for conduct in the court's presence, and impose jail time or a fine without a separate trial. Section 38.13, by contrast, is a criminal offense: it requires a charging instrument, discovery, and a trial with the ordinary burden of proof, and it results in a criminal conviction and record.
Both may follow from the same outburst. A person released from a contempt sanction may still face a Class A misdemeanor.
Defenses
The proceeding was not hindered. The statute requires that the proceeding actually be hindered — not merely that someone was annoyed. A brief interruption that did not interfere with the conduct of the proceeding may not satisfy the element.
No warning (reckless theory). As above.
No intent (intentional theory). Emotional reaction to a ruling, a verdict, or testimony about a family member is very different from an objective to obstruct, and courtroom video usually shows which it was.
First Amendment limits. Speech-based conduct in and around public proceedings carries constitutional protection; the statute reaches disruption, not content.
Medical and mental health. Panic, disability, and medication effects are frequently the real explanation and are relevant both to the mental state and to disposition.
Related
- Harris County criminal courts — what to expect at each setting
- Section 38.14 — taking a weapon from a peace officer
- Bond conditions
Charged in Harris County?
Brian Foley is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a former Harris County Felony Chief Prosecutor; Luis Baez is a former Trial Bureau Chief. Call or text (713) 703-1718 for a free, confidential consultation.