Blankenbaker v. State

Citation201 Ind. 142,166 N.E. 265
Decision Date15 May 1929
Docket NumberNo. 24825.,24825.
PartiesBLANKENBAKER v. STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court; Thos. W. Hutchison, Judge.

Felix Blankenbaker was convicted of direct contempt of court, and he appeals. Reversed with directions.

White, Wright & McKay, of Indianapolis, Miller, Beeler & Causey and Henry W. Moore, all of Terre Haute, Walter Brewer, of Danville, Ill., Albert R. Owens, of Miami, Fla., Charles C. Whitlock, and Harold A. Henderson, of St. Augustine, Fla., for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of direct contempt of court and fined in the sum of $100 and ordered imprisoned for a period of 30 days on the Indiana State Farm. From this judgment he appeals.

The record shows that on June 27, 1924, in the Clay circuit court of Clay county, Ind., the following proceedings were had before Hon. Thomas W. Hutchison, sole judge of said court:

In the Matter of the Contempt Proceedings Against Felix Blankenbaker. No. 686. Contempt of Court.

Felix Blankenbaker, the accused, being present in court, the clerk thereof, by the direction of the judge, read to him a statement by the judge, charging him with direct contempt of court, which statement by the court, and the statement of his defense by said Felix Blankenbaker, are as follows:

State of Indiana, County of Clay-ss:

“In the Matter of tbe Contempt Proceedings Against Felix Blankenbaker.

“Charges.

“The said Felix Blankenbaker, being present in court, the court makes the following statement of the contempt of court of which the accused is now and has been guilty:

“That he filed in the Clay Circuit Court of Indiana, on the 13th day of June, 1924, a motion for a new trial in the case of the State of Indiana, against Edward Barber, Cause No. 669, of said court, containing certain false, willful, malicious, impertinent, scandalous, insulting, and contemptuous language, charges and insinuations and libels, not inuring in any way for the benefit of said defendant, the record disclosing and affirmatively showing that no proper objection was made at the time of such incidents, or exception reserved for the purpose of reviewing the same; but the same being inserted in said motion for a new trial for the sole and only purpose of belittling and injuring the dignity of the court, insulting the Judge thereof, and to vent the feelings of a spiteful and malicious heart.

“The said language constituting such offense is as follows:

“'Fifth: The court erred in announcing from the bench when a motion for continuance was filed in said cause, that defendant was not be given time to prepare his defense in said cause, as threats were being made to tear down the jail and release the defendant, and that an extra guard had to be employed to guard the defendant, at the expense of the county.

‘Sixth: The court erred in fixing the time for the defendant to be tried on the 5th day of May, the first day of the May Term, in this, to wit: That said motion for continuance was filed on the - day of April, 1924, and that in said motion was shown to the court that defendant's counsel would be required to go to St. Louis, Missouri, and make an investigation and find witnesses' names and addresses and arrange to take depositions of witnesses, after an investigation, and that notice would be required to be given to the state; that the court sustained motion for continuance on the - day of April, 1924, and set the time for trial for May 5, 1924, allowing only a period of nine days to elapse, which was not a reasonable time to get ready, and which made it impossible for defendant to prepare his defense and get his evidence.’

“‘Tenth: The court erred in demonstrating his bias and prejudice against defendant by announcing to the jury that he knew enough outside of the record to send the defendant to the electric-chair, which statement was false and untrue, and showed the biased mind of the court in trying said cause.

“‘Eleventh: The court erred in interrogating jurors by requiring them to state that they would inflict the death penalty as readily as they would life imprisonment.

‘Twelfth: The court erred in requiring each juror to state that he would not shrink from assessing the death penalty any more than he would hesitate to assess a life sentence in this case.’

“‘Fourteenth: The court erred in demanding the sheriff to bring the defendant into court before the jury without giving him an opportunity to get shaved or fully dressed.

‘Fifteenth: The court erred in producing defendant over defendant's objection into open court before the jury with several weeks' growth of beard on his face, in tatters and rags and almost barefooted.

‘Sixteenth: The court erred in refusing defendant to file an amended special plea of insanity, before the jury was sworn to try the cause.’

‘Eighteenth: The court erred in stating in open court that he had observed defendant, had had him in court to plead and had noticed him in the court room and his eyes looked all right, and he therefore pronounced him to be of sound mind.’

“‘Twentieth: The court erred in striking out parts of witness Rothmeir's evidence after defendant had rested, and the court was informed that the witness had left the state.

“‘Twenty-First: The court erred in ruling on State's motion to strike out the testimony of John Rothmeir for leaving the state. In saying in the presence of the jury that it was not the law that he could do that, but that Wigmore, the greatest authority on evidence, said it ought to be, and immediately proceeded to strike it out.

“‘Twenty-Second: The court erred in refusing to try defendant in the same manner as though the indictment had been returned in the Clay Circuit Court.

“‘Twenty-Third: The court erred in refusing to permit defendant to inquire of prospective jurors, whether or not they belonged to any secret organization, for the purpose of exercising a peremptory challenge.

“‘Twenty-Fourth: The court erred in not making an order that Fred Tosser, who was confined in the State Prison at Michigan City, be produced in court to testify on behalf of the defendant; his evidence was very material.

‘Twenty-Fifth: The court erred in not giving defendant an opportunity to get an order from court to produce Mike Murphy, who was confined in prison at Michigan City; in court to testify for defendant.’

‘Thirtieth: The court erred in not appointing a local attorney of the Clay County Bar to assist in his defense.’

“Whereupon the said Felix Blankenbaker and the said Hon. Thomas W. Hutchison, sole judge of said court, had the following conversation, to wit:

“Statement of Mr. Blankenbaker.

“Mr. Blankenbaker: I want to take exceptions to the court ordering this part of the motion read, and want to inquire what is the nature of this proceeding.

“Judge: I said the paper will speak for itself and you now have an opportunity to make a statement.

“Mr. Blankenbaker: Is there a charge filed here against me? If there is, I want an opportunity to answer.

“Judge: The statement was read to you and was made out according to law, and the reporter is here to take down whatever statement you have to make.

“Mr. Blankenbaker: I will state to the court that if there has been a charge filed against me here for indirect contempt of court I am ready to meet the charge, and that in reference to this part of this motion that has been read by the clerk to the audience-

“Judge: That is the statement of the court, read by the clerk at the direction of the court.

“Mr. Blankenbaker: That I am asking that these charges be reduced to writing and that I be furnished a copy of the same and given an opportunity to file answer. And I want to further state that this motion for a new trial that has been filed here, if the time comes during the progress of this case, that it becomes necessary to file a bill of exceptions, that I expect to present a bill of exceptions, embodying each error set out in the motion, and I expect the Judge of this court to sign the bill of exceptions even though it becomes necessary to appeal to the Supreme Court to get it done. If I am to be charged here with any offense by this court, I expect the court to make his record and give me an exception to his ruling, and give me a trial and an opportunity to appeal my case.

“After which the Hon. Thomas W. Hutchison, sole judge of said court, pronounced the following judgment, to wit:

“And now the court having listened to the reading of said charges of contempt, and to the statement of the accused in his own defense, and being sufficiently advised in the premises, finds the accused guilty of direct contempt of this court, as set out in the statement of the court above; that the statements contained in said motion for a new trial were made by the said Felix Blankenbaker, that they were false, willful, malicious, impertinent, scandalous, insulting, libelous, irrelevant, scurrilous, and serve no legal purpose in said motion; that they in no way inure to the benefit of said defendant, Edward Barber, as the record discloses affirmatively and truly that no objection whatever was made at the time of such incidents, nor any exception reserved at any time for the purpose of having the same reviewed by the appellate court on behalf of said Edward Barber, in determining whether any error had been committed by the trial court, and any error contained therein, if the facts were true, had been waived; that said contemptuous language had been inserted in said motion for a new trial by said Felix Blankenbaker for the sole and only purpose of belittling and injuring the dignity of the court, insulting the judge thereof, outraging the majesty of the law, and giving vent to the feelings of a spiteful and malicious heart; that the statement of said pretended defense of said Felix Blankenbaker is a mere reiteration of the false and contemptuous conduct and language of the accused, with the assertion of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 8 December 1981
    ... ... at 694, 153 N.E.2d at 596 ...         In cases of direct contempt, a court on appeal will accept as true the statement entered of record by the lower court of the matter constituting the contempt, and cannot interfere "unless it clearly appears the judgment is wrong." Blankenbaker v. State, (1929) 201 Ind. 142, 153, 166 N.E. 265, 268. However, an appellate court "will examine the record, if necessary, to determine whether the acts alleged to be contemptuous do, in fact, constitute contempt." State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray, (1952) 231 Ind. 223, 235, 108 N.E.2d 251, 257 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Steers v. Criminal Court of Lake County
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 25 May 1953
    ... ... [232 Ind. 446] Harrison v. State, Ind. 1952, 106 N.E.2d 912. A petition for rehearing was overruled October 6, 1952 ...         We take judicial notice of the record in this previous appeal. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 1931, 202 Ind. 641, 177 N.E. 454; Blankenbaker v. State, 1929, 201 Ind. 142, 166 N.E. 265; Robbins v. State, 1926, 197 Ind. 304, 149 N.E. 726. The judgment on the verdict was rendered the 5th day of February, 1951, which was during the January term of the trial court. By § 4-2309, Burns' 1946 Replacement, the trial court has two terms each ... ...
  • Hopping v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 1 August 1994
    ... ... Blankenbaker v. State (1929), 201 Ind. 142, 153, 166 N.E. 265, 268. However, we examine the record to determine whether the acts recorded do, in fact, constitute contempt ... ...
  • Blankenbaker v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 15 May 1929
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT