Austin v. City and County of Denver
Citation | 397 P.2d 743,156 Colo. 180 |
Decision Date | 21 December 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 20456,20456 |
Parties | Esther AUSTIN, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Eugene J. Roberts, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Robert S. Wham, City Atty., Thomas A. Gilliam, Robert M. Kelly, Asst. City Attys., Denver, for defendant in error.
Esther Austin was adjudged guilty of contempt of the Superior Court in Denver. A fine of $100.00 (the approximate cost of a trial of the cause in which she was then a defendant) was assessed against her. It is this action of the trial court which is the subject to attack by the present writ of error.
Esther was convicted in the Municipal Court in Denver of violating an ordinance of that city. She appealed the judgment and sentence imposed to the Superior Court, where, on a trial de novo, the jury was unable to agree on a verdict.
The entire proceeding involving the contempt took place before the jury was discharged as the result of the belief of the trial court that the jurors were insolubly deadlocked. We quote the proceeding in its entirety.
'(THE COURT presented 'Third Degree' instruction.)
On the following day, the trial court entered its order, to-wit:
'During the taking of the testimony of the defendant, in response to a question of Deputy City Attorney Kelly, the defendant rambled away from a direct answer to the question, and tossed from the witness box to the bench this same group of envelopes, stating to the Court that the Court would be interested in them.
'So it is apparent that it was in the mind of the defendant that the contents of these envelopes might influence the trial.
'It also appeared that the deliberations of the jury were affected by this effort of the defendant to contact Juror No. 4, because the matter was called to the attention of the Court by the foreman of the jury.
'The Court now believes that a mistrial should be declared because of the misconduct of the defendant, and that under the provisions of CRS 39-7-21 the defendant should be punished for contempt of court.
'Accordingly, inasmuch as the cost of this jury was in the neighborhood of $75.00, and other costs were incurred, the defendant is fined $100.00 for contempt of Court, which fine she is directed to pay within 15 days of this date, or a bench warrant will issue.'
Whether the court read the letters, and whether they were harmless, the record does not reveal. An assurance that they were innocuous and inoffensive, and an offer to the court that it verify whether such be the case were efforts at mollifying the court in the pursuit of whatever purpose it had in mind in conducting the hearing.
The power to punish for contempt, as a punitive measure or to coerce obedience, is an inherent and indispensable power of the courts. Such power 'is not derived from the Legislature and cannot be made to depend upon the legislative will.' Intrinsic in tribunals following the common law, such as ours, is the right to protect themselves against insults and indignities, interference with the administration of justice, and disobedience of their orders. People ex rel. Attorney General v. News-Times Pub. Co., 35 Colo. 253, 84 P. 912, error dismissed, Patterson v. People of Colorado ex rel., 205 U.S. 454, 27 S.Ct. 556, 51 L.Ed. 879; Hughes v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marshall v. Kort
...Cir.1979). The court also has the inherent power to enforce its remedial orders in contempt proceedings. Austin v. City and County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743 (1964). The Criminal Code is similar to the civil commitment statute in providing that the commitment shall be for purpos......
-
People v. Aleem
...a wide variety of circumstances and competing interests. See, e.g., Barron, 677 P.2d at 1373 (quoting Austin v. City & County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 184, 397 P.2d 743, 746 (1964)). As I have noted elsewhere and in other contexts, see, e.g., Medina v. People, 114 P.3d 845, 861 (Colo.2005)......
-
Reed v. State
......, a woman was raped, late at night, outside her home in Montgomery County, Maryland. She immediately entered a hospital for treatment and reported ... of World War II to travel by automobile from Baltimore to New York City. There are even members of this Court, however, who can remember the time ......
-
Neff, In re
...shows that the defendant was orally and informally given reasonable notice of the charge against him. See Austin v. City & County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743, wherein the defendant upon hearing was convicted of direct contempt and fined $100. The Supreme Court of Colorado held, i......
-
RULE 107
...of one to know that the purpose of a hearing is the ascertainment of whether he is guilty of contempt. Austin v. City & County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743 (1964). A court violates an attorney's due process rights if the court does not provide reasonable notice of the charges and ......
-
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
...of one to know that the purpose of a hearing is the ascertainment of whether he is guilty of contempt. Austin v. City & County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743 (1964). A court violates an attorney's due process rights if the court does not provide reasonable notice of the charges and ......
-
Rule 107 REMEDIAL AND PUNITIVE SANCTIONS FOR CONTEMPT.
...of one to know that the purpose of a hearing is the ascertainment of whether he is guilty of contempt. Austin v. City & County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743 (1964). A court violates an attorney's due process rights if the court does not provide reasonable notice of the charges and ......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...of the person to be affected, it is the duty of the court to apprise him of the object of the hearing. Austin v. City & County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743 (1964); People v. Barron, 677 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1984). Procedures for notifying defendants, whether owners, drivers, nonreside......