Dodge v. State

• Decision Date: 08 February 1895
• Docket Number: 17,127
• Parties: Dodge v. The State
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

39 N.E. 745

140 Ind. 284

Dodge v. The State

No. 17,127

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 8, 1895

From the Elkhart Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

J. D Osborne and A. S. Zook, for appellant.

A. G Smith, Attorney-General, for State.

OPINION

Jordan, J.

The appellant prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment declaring him guilty of contempt of court.

From a statement filed by the judge we gather the following material facts: The appellant is an attorney at the bar of the lower court, and while a jury was being empaneled for the trial of a cause therein pending, in which the appellant was counsel for the defendant, he began to examine, in a disagreeable and contemptuous manner, a juror on his voir dire, and propounded to the juror this question: "Have you formed or expressed an opinion as to the title of any of the goods in Jacob's store, seized upon an execution for any reason whatever?" Thereupon the court said: "Mr. Dodge, your question is absurd. Of course he formed an opinion as to the title to the goods claimed by Putnam. He was sworn to do that"--(referring to a cause in which the juror had sat the previous day). To this the appellant answered in an angry and contemptuous manner, "that he objected to the court trying to belittle him before the jury, and that he would not suffer such a remark to pass without a vigorous protest." To this the court said: "Mr. Dodge, I do not wish to belittle you, but you have no right to ask the juror if he has formed an opinion in regard to the title of the Putnam goods, and please do not repeat it." The appellant then, as the statement avers, again "deliberately, defiantly, and contemptuously put the same question to the juror." The court said: "Your question is absurd. You know that it is absurd, and you know that I know it is absurd. The juror need not answer the question." To this the appellant replied, in an angry, defiant, and contemptuous manner: "If that language was used towards me on the street I would know how to answer it; but here in court I can not." It is further averred in the statement that appellant proceeded with the trial of the cause in a sullen, contemptuous, and angry manner. The appellant unsuccessfully assailed this statement with motions to quash and dismiss, and also by demurring thereto. After taking these steps he filed a counter-statement, presenting his view and understanding of the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, which we do not deem necessary to set forth in detail in this opinion. In this statement he disclaimed any intention of treating the court with anything but the utmost respect, but confesses, however, that he did say to the court in an angry mood and manner: "If that language was used towards me on the street I would know how to answer, but here in court I can not."

He further admits that he feels that he can not justify such a reply to the court; and also states "that he regrets that he was betrayed into making a retort that ought not to have been made in court, but that he felt that the statement made by the judge was injurious to the interest of his client."

The trial court, after fully considering the matters involved, found appellant guilty of a direct contempt, and assessed, as a punishment therefor, a fine of fifty dollars, and rendered judgment against him for the fine and cost.

The main, and, in fact, only question properly raised by the assignment of errors, is this: Was the alleged conduct a contempt of court? Giving the language and conduct of appellant, as the same appears in the statement, a reasonable and fair interpretation, we think that this question must be answered in the affirmative.

It is well settled by the decisions of this court that disorderly conduct, insulting demeanor towards the court, and disobedience of its orders or directions, in facie curiae, constitute a direct contempt. Holman v. State, 105 Ind. 513, 5 N.E. 556, and authorities there cited.

As a general propositio...