Blanton v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | A-4790. |
| Citation | 239 P. 698,31 Okla.Crim. 419 |
| Parties | BLANTON et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Contempts of court are classified as civil and criminal. The distinction between "civil" and "criminal" contempts is that the former consists in disobeying some judicial order made in the interest of another party to the proceeding; the latter consists of acts disrespectful to the court or obstructive to the administration of justice, or calculated to bring the court into disrepute.
Contempts are further divided into direct contempts and indirect contempts. A direct contempt consists of "disorderly" or "insolent" behavior committed during the session of the court, and in its immediate view and presence, and of the unlawful and willful refusal of any person to be sworn as a witness, and the refusal to answer any legal or proper question, and any breach of the peace, noise, or disturbance so near to it as to interrupt its proceedings. An indirect contempt consists of willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued or made by the court, and resistance willfully offered by any person to the execution of a lawful order or process of the court.
A civil contempt may be either direct or indirect, and a criminal contempt may be either direct or indirect.
A direct contempt may be summarily punished by the court. But in the case of an indirect contempt, the party charged shall be notified in writing of the accusation and, upon demand have a trial by jury.
A witness, upon whom is served a subp na duces tecum, ordering him to produce before a grand jury books, documents, and records, who attends before the grand jury and testifies, but fails to produce such books, documents, and records, without satisfactory excuse, is guilty of an indirect contempt.
A proceeding in the case of an indirect contempt, without a written accusation charging such contempt, is a nullity.
The denial of a jury trial, after demand by one charged with indirect contempt, is a violation of a constitutional and statutory right.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Violation of order not made for benefit of any party to any litigation or matter pending in court held a criminal contempt as distinguished from a civil contempt, as being an act obstructive to the administration of justice.
Appeal from District Court, Bryan County; Porter Newman, Judge.
E. M Blanton and another were adjudged guilty of a direct contempt of court, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Hatchett & Semple, of Durant, O. R. Fowler, of Tulsa, and Williams & Finney, and Victor C. Phillips, all of Durant, for plaintiffs in error.
George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and Baxter Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
For brevity and convenience, the plaintiffs in error will be referred to as defendants. This proceeding is an appeal from an order of the district court of Bryan county adjudging the defendants guilty of a direct contempt of court, and sentencing them to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail. The case arose in this manner: These defendants were served with a subp na duces tecum to appear before the grand jury of Bryan county, the subp na containing an order as follows:
"And bring with you, on behalf of the state, all records of the membership, minutes of all regular or called meetings, and all other records, in your possession or under your control, of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Durant Klan No. 42."
The defendants and E. G. Villers appeared before the grand jury and testified, but did not produce the records called for in the subp na. Thereafter, the grand jury filed an "application for order adjudging witnesses to be in contempt of court." This instrument set forth that the defendants had failed to produce records as directed; that the records were needed by the grand jury in the investigation relating to the alleged whipping of one Ned Bates and Tom Mayo; that the witnesses had conspired to withhold and suppress these records and were depriving the grand jury of evidence it needed. The court was asked for an order committing the defendants and Villers for contempt, until they should purge themselves by producing the said records. The court then made an order to the effect that, unless defendants and Villers brought said records into court by 1:30 p. m. of that date, they would be adjudged guilty of contempt. At the hour of 1:30, defendants and Villers came into court without the records, and the court inquired if they were ready to comply with the order made upon them to produce the records requested by the grand jury, and the said defendants and Villers informed the court that they had not produced the records, and the court thereupon adjudged them guilty of contempt for refusing to comply with said order. At their request, the court held in suspension the passing of judgment and sentence until the Monday following. At that time, the parties appeared, made a written request for a trial by jury, which the court denied, and held the charge was for a direct contempt. The parties then requested leave to file a written answer, which was granted, and the written answer filed. The court further ruled that the burden was on the defendants and Villers to purge themselves of the contempt. The answer is joint, and is, in substance, that Villers is the chief officer, with the title "Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan, Durant Klan No. 42." The defendant Stephenson says he was at one time secretary of said Klan but had not been since June, 1923. The defendant Blanton denies that he is assistant secretary of the Klan. All deny that they have possession of any of the records or files of the said Klan, deny any knowledge of where said books, records, and files are, deny that they know who has said books, records, and files, and allege that it is not in their power to produce the same or to get them. State that in obedience to subp nas issued by the grand jury they appeared before said grand jury and truthfully answered all questions concerning all matters whatsoever. The answer was verified by the parties.
Thereupon each of the parties, together with Jim Blanton, a brother of the defendant E. M. Blanton, testified before the court. The testimony of defendant Blanton is that he had been the secretary of Durant Klan, but his term expired in February preceding, and since that time he had not had custody of the records, and had no idea where they were; that the defendant Stephenson, who succeeded him as secretary, told him at one time he was going to resign as secretary and wanted him (Blanton) to act, but had not turned over to him any records, though his brother had informed him that Stephenson had left a box of books at his place of business, but the witness had never seen them.
Defendant Stephenson testified that he resigned as secretary about June 25th, and that he left the books and records at Blanton's store under the counter and told a brother of the defendant Blanton to give them to Ed, meaning the defendant E. M. Blanton, who was at that time out of the city. This testimony was corroborated by Jim Blanton, brother of the defendant Blanton.
Villers testified that he was Exalted Cyclops, that he knew nothing about the records, never had the custody of them, and had endeavored to get them, but was unable to find them.
All testified they were perfectly willing to deliver them to the grand jury, if in their power to do so. The evidence was further that the records contained nothing in reference to any whippings or which would throw any light on any alleged whippings.
The state offered no evidence to controvert the testimony of defendants. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court made an order adjudging Blanton and Stephenson guilty of contempt, and assessed a punishment of 30 days in jail and a fine of $50, and discharged Villers. Motion for a new trial was filed and overruled.
The defendants present the following assignments of error: First that the judgment and sentence is contrary to the evidence and not supported thereby. Second, that if the acts complained of were a contempt it was an indirect contempt and defendants were entitled to a jury trial. Third, that the court adjudged defendants guilty without hearing any evidence or giving them an opportunity to be heard. Fourth, that no charge or accusation was made against defendants. Fifth, that the subp na duces tecum was...
To continue reading
Request your trial