RALEIGH,FinLogic N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina judge wrongly found a potential juror in criminal contempt for refusing to wear a mask in 2022 due to COVID-19, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed unanimously to reverse the order against Gregory Hahn, saying in part that his actions didn’t interrupt court proceedings. Hahn had received a 24-hour jail sentence from Superior Court Judge Winston Gilchrist in October 2022. He asked that the state’s intermediate-level court hear his case.

The judge in 2022 declared that Hahn had been ordered three times to wear a mask. Gilchrist’s order also found that Hahn “willfully behaved in a contemptuous manner” and his conduct harmed the respect that the court’s authority was due.

According to Tuesday’s opinion, the Harnett County Courthouse at the time was under a mask directive — signed in part by Gilchrist — that said masks were optional in common areas and meeting rooms, but judges had discretion to require masks inside their courtrooms.

Hahn reported for jury duty and was directed to a jury assembly room. When a courthouse worker asked him there to wear a mask, he declined. He was removed from the room and taken to a courtroom where Gilchrist told him about the mask requirement in his courtroom where he’d be a potential juror and in the jury assembly room. Hahn responded that “with all due respect, I will not be wearing a mask, sir.” He was found in contempt after Gilchrist warned him about the potential punishments.

Writing the prevailing opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Michael Stading said the elements of criminal contempt weren’t present in this case. Hahn did not disrupt court, Stading wrote, pointing out that he was not a participant in ongoing proceedings in a courtroom and was respectful to Gilchrist.

The masking directive was also invalid because it came several months after state Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby issued a statewide order revoking all pandemic emergency directives, including those giving discretion to local courts, according to Stading.

Even so, there is nothing sufficient to support findings that Hahn “could have known his discussion with the courthouse employee in the jury assembly room might directly interrupt proceedings or interfere with the court’s order or business,” Stading wrote. Judge April Wood agreed with Stading’s opinion. Judge Jefferson Griffin agreed with the outcome but wrote a separate opinion.

The state Supreme Court could now hear the cause if there are further appeals, but the justices aren’t required to do so.