Edwards v. Jameson, 84-95
| Decision Date | 22 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-95,84-95 |
| Citation | 283 Ark. 395,677 S.W.2d 842 |
| Parties | Joe EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. Paul JAMESON, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Everett & Whitlock by John C. Everett, Prairie Grove, for petitioner.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Leslie Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.
The petitioner, Joe Edwards, was found guilty of criminal contempt of court and was sentenced to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail. Execution of the sentence was superseded to permit Edwards to seek a review by this petition for a writ of certiorari. The controlling question is whether Edwards was given sufficiently specific notice of the charge against him. We find the notice deficient and accordingly grant the writ and remand the cause for further proceedings.
A Springdale bank brought an action in replevin against Edwards to recover hundreds of items of personal property or fixtures to which the bank had acquired title by a foreclosure against a third person and which were at least in part in a building owned by Edwards. Exhibit A to the bank's affidavit for delivery listed the items, in 54 different categories. The court entered three preliminary orders, two of which directed Edwards not to remove from the court's jurisdiction, damage, conceal, or sell any of the property listed on Exhibit A. Those are the orders giving rise to the present contempt proceeding.
The bank tried to take Edwards's discovery deposition, but he refused to say whether he had sold any of the property in issue. The bank moved for an order to compel Edwards to answer such questions. At the hearing on that motion it became apparent that Edwards may have violated the court's preliminary orders. The facts not being clear, the trial judge asked the bank's attorney if he had evidence that a court order had been violated. The attorney said he could subpoena a witness to make that proof. The trial judge then entered an order directing Edwards to appear on a certain date to show cause why he should not be held in contempt "for violation of the lawful orders of this Court."
At the contempt hearing four weeks later Edwards's attorney admitted having had a reasonable time to prepare his defense, but he objected at the outset to the absence of any pleading asking the court to hold Edwards in contempt. The bank's attorney answered that the court's order to show cause was sufficient under the Henderson and CarlLee cases, infra. The court overruled the defense objection, apparently considering the order to show cause to be sufficient notice. Five witnesses testified at the hearing, at the conclusion of which the trial judge announced his decision and fixed the sentence.
A citation for criminal contempt is not unlike an information filed by the prosecutor in a criminal case. Such a contempt proceeding is usually based upon a litigant's affidavit, but it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ark. Dept. Health & Human Serv. V. Briley
...In contending that the court erred in holding the agency in contempt, DHHS relies upon this court's decision in Edwards v. Jameson, 283 Ark. 395, 677 S.W.2d 842 (1984). That case, however, is clearly distinguishable. In Edwards, the only written accusation in the petition was that Edwards v......
-
Damron v. Damron, CV-18-587
...to a jury trial under the reasoning of Taylor v. Hayes , supra. We adopted the rule set out in Taylor v. Hayes in Edwards v. Jameson , 283 Ark. 395, 677 S.W.2d 842 (1984). We noted, however, that "the better practice in cases of criminal contempt is for the trial judge to announce at the ou......
-
Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 87-141
...possible imprisonment may exceed six months. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S. Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974); Edwards v. Jameson, 283 Ark. 395, 677 S.W.2d 842 (1984). ...
-
Etoch v. State, 00-573
...to a jury trial under the reasoning of Taylor v. Hayes, supra. We adopted the rule set out in Taylor v. Hayes in Edwards v. Jameson, 283 Ark. 395, 677 S.W.2d 842 (1984). We noted, however, that "the better practice in cases of criminal contempt is for the trial judge to announce at the outs......