Blue Jeans Corp. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO

• Decision Date: 16 October 1969
• Docket Number: No. 5,AFL-CIO,5
• Citation: 275 N.C. 503,169 S.E.2d 867
• Parties: , 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2661 BLUE JEANS CORPORATION and Whiteville Manufacturing Company v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 867

169 S.E.2d 867

275 N.C. 503, 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2661

BLUE JEANS CORPORATION and Whiteville Manufacturing Company v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO et al.

No. 5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 16, 1969.

Rountree & Clark, by John Richard Newton, Wilmington, for defendant appellants.

Powell, Lee & Lee, by J. B. Lee, Whiteville, for plaintiff appellees.

HUSKINS, Justice.

The Constitution of North Carolina, Article I, Section 13, reads as follows: 'No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful persons in open court. The Legislature may, however, provide other means of trial, for petty misdemeanors, with the right of appeal.'

The Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2, reads in pertinent part as follows: 'The Trial of all Crimes except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury * * *.' The Sixth Amendment thereto provides, Inter alia, that '(i)n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury * * *.'

Were appealing defendants in this contempt proceeding entitled to a jury trial under the foregoing provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions? That is the only question presented by this appeal.

Maxine Kellihan, Frank Tyler and James Martin have been adjudged guilty of willful disobedience of an order lawfully issued by the court. This is contemptuous conduct. G.S. § 5--1, subsection 4; Nobles v. Roberson, 212 N.C. 334, 193 S.E. 420; Elder v. Barnes, 219 N.C. 411, 14 S.E.2d 249. Such conduct is punishable by 'fine not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, or imprisonment not to exceed thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court.' G.S. § 5--4. The right of review on appeal is afforded by G.S. § 5--2 since the contempt was not committed in the presence of the court.

'A person guilty of any of the acts or omissions enumerated in the eight subsections of G.S. § 5--1 may be punished for contempt because such acts or omissions have a direct tendency to interrupt the proceedings of the court or to impair the respect due to its authority. A person guilty of any of the acts or neglects catalogued in the seven subdivisions of G.S. § 5--8 is punishable as for contempt because such acts or neglects tend to defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to an action pending in court.

'It is essential to the due administration of justice in this field of the law that the fundamental distinction between a proceeding for contempt under G.S. § 5--1 and a proceeding as for contempt under G.S. § 5--8 be recognized and enforced. The importance of the distinction lies in differences in the procedure, the punishment, and the right of review established by law for the two proceedings.' Luther v. Luther, 234 N.C. 429, 67 S.E.2d 345.

The line of demarcation between civil and criminal contempts is hazy at best. 'A major factor in determining whether a contempt is civil or criminal is the purpose for which the power is exercised. Where the primary purpose is to preserve the court's authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders, the contempt is criminal. Where the primary purpose is to provide a remedy for an injured suitor and to coerce compliance with an order, the contempt is civil. * * * Civil contempt proceedings look only to the future.' 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contempt § 4.

In Rose's Stores v. Tarrytown Center, Inc., 270 N.C. 206, 154 S.E.2d 313, there was a violation of a temporary restraining order in a civil action. There, as here, defendants were cited to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the temporary order. The court said: 'Criminal contempt or punishment For contempt is applied where the judgment is in punishment of an act already accomplished, tending to interfere with the administration of justice. Civil contempt or punishment As for contempt is applied to a continuing act,' and the proceeding is used to compel obedience to orders and decrees made for the benefit of private parties and to preserve and enforce private rights.

While some jurisdictions hold that a criminal contempt proceeding is independent and not a part of the case out of which the alleged contempt arose (Berlandi v. Commonwealth, 314 Mass, 424, 50 N.E.2d 210), there is authority that a contempt proceeding based on the violation of an injunction, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil or criminal in nature, is a part of the original injunction suit and properly triable as such (Frey v. Willey, 161 Kan. 196, 166 P.2d 659). 'Although contempt of court, in its essential character, is divided into various kinds, such as direct or constructive, and civil or criminal, nevertheless in every species of contempt * * * there is said to be necessarily inherent an element of offense against the majesty of the law savoring more or less of criminality. Therefore it is said that the process by which the party charged is reached and tried * * * is essentially criminal or quasi-criminal.' 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contempt § 78; Jenkins v. State, 242 Miss. 627, 136 So.2d 205. The fact that contemptuous conduct arises in a civil action does not alter the fact that contempt proceedings are criminal in nature. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797.

In this State a contempt proceeding has been described as Sui generis, criminal in its nature, which may be resorted to in civil or criminal actions. In Re Hege, 205 N.C. 625, 172 S.E. 345; Safie Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E.2d 577; accord, Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 52 S.Ct. 252, 76 L.Ed. 375.

Here, appellants were punished for acts already accomplished which tended to impair the respect due the authority of the court and interfere with the administration of justice. Hence, they were properly charged with and punished for criminal contempt. Dyer v. Dyer, 213 N.C. 634, 197 S.E. 157. The procedure prescribed for indirect contempt was followed--and properly so since the contemptuous acts were not committed in the actual or constructive presence of the court. G.S. § 5--7; Galyon v. Stutts, 241 N.C. 120, 84 S.E.2d 822.

We now examine the validity of the contention that appellants are entitled to a jury trial in a criminal contempt proceeding.

It is said in State v. Yancy, 4 N.C. 133, that punishment for contempt is 'the exercise of a power incident to all courts of record, and essential to the administration of the laws. The punishment, in such cases, must be immediate, or it would be ineffectual, as it is designed to suppress an outrage which impedes the business of the court.'

In Baker v. Cordon, 86 N.C. 116, defendant was charged with violating an injunction in a civil action. He was cited to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt in disobeying the order. Defendant contended he was entitled to a jury trial. Held: 'The proceeding by attachment for violating an order of the Court made in furtherance of a pending action is necessarily summary and prompt, and to be effectual it must be so. The Judge determines the facts and adjudges the contempt, and while he may avail himself of a jury and have their verdict upon a disputed and doubtful matter of fact, it is in his discretion to do so or not.' This legal principle has been approved in many decisions of this Court, including In Re Deaton, 105 N.C. 59, 11 S.E. 244; In Re Gorham, 129 N.C. 481, 40 S.E. 311; Safie Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, supra, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E.2d 577; and it is in accord with the weight of authority in the United States. The general rule for more than 150 years has been that a constitutional guaranty of jury trial does not apply to proceedings for contempt of court. 31 Am.Jur., Jury, § 38; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. 194 U.S. 324, 24 S.Ct. 665, 48 L.Ed. 997; In Re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 15 S.Ct. 900, 39 L.Ed. 1092; Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 34 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed. 1115; Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 78 S.Ct. 632, 2 L.Ed.2d 672; United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 84 S.Ct. 984, 12 L.Ed.2d 23; Neel v. State, 9 Ark. 259; Blodgett v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. 1, 290 P. 293, 72 A.L.R. 482; O'Brien v. People, 216 Ill. 354, 75 N.E. 108; State v. Shumaker, 200 Ind. 716, 164 N.E. 408, 63 A.L.R. 218; Flannagan v. Jepson, 177 Iowa 393, 158 N.W. 641, L.R.A.1918E, 548; Root v. McDonald, 260 Mass. 344, 157 N.E. 684, 54 A.L.R. 1422; Osborne v. Purdome, (Mo.) 244 S.W.2d 1005, 29 A.L.R.2d 1141, cert. den. 343 U.S. 953, 72 S.Ct. 1046, 96 L.Ed. 1354, reh. den. 343 U.S. 988, 72 S.Ct. 1072, 96 L.Ed. 1375; State ex rel. Stewart v. District Ct., 77 Mont. 361, 251 P. 137, 49 A.L.R. 627; Carter v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 791, 32 S.E. 780, 45 L.R.A. 310; State v. Fredlock, 52 W.Va. 232, 43 S.E. 153.

Historically speaking, there was no constitutional right of trial by jury in a criminal contempt case prior to 1968. 'It has always been the law of the land, both state and federal, that the courts--except where specifically precluded by statute--have the power to proceed summarily in contempt matters.' United States v. Barnett, supra, 376 U.S. 681, 84 S.Ct. 984, 12 L.Ed.2d 23. The claim that those charged with criminal contempt have a constitutional right to a jury trial was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in more than fifty cases--from United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259, in 1812 to United States v. Barnett, supra, in 1964.

Finally, however, in Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522, (1968), those precedents embodying the judicial wisdom of eminent jurists for 156 years were overruled with respect to Serious contempts, i.e., contempts for which the authorized punishment exceeds imprisonment for six months or a $500 fine. Bloom was charged with criminal contempt for which Illinois law provided no maximum punishment. Request for a jury trial was denied; defendant was found...