In In re Owens, 128 N.C. App. 577, 582, 496 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1998), aff'd per curiam, 350 N.C. 656, 517 S.E.2d 605 (1999), the trial court imposed "direct criminal contempt sanctions against a subpoenaed reporter who refused to testify regarding non-confidential information from a non-confidential source." Owens, 128 N.C. App. at 580, 496 S.E.2d at 594. On appeal, the reporter argued that the trial court failed to indicate that it found the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 581, 496 S.E.2d at 595. The Court recognized that the purpose for this requirement was "to ensure that the trial court considered any excuse and found it inadequate." Id. at 581, 496 S.E.2d at 595. The Court held: In this case, there was simply no factual determination for the trial court to make. It is clear that the reporter asserted her privilege argument, that the trial court rejected such an argument and instructed her that she would be held in contempt for refusing to answer the prosecutor's question, and that she subsequently refused to answer any questions. Although she may have acted in good faith, there is no factual dispute that Owens willfully disobeyed the trial court's order. Id. at 581, 496 S.E.2d at 595. Accordingly, the Court held that "under these facts the requirements of the statute were met." Id. at 582, 496 S.E.2d at 595.