Ex parte Miles
Decision Date | 11 August 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 24585,24585 |
Citation | 406 S.W.2d 107 |
Parties | Ex parte John Sherman MILES. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lewis E. Pierce, Robert G. Duncan, Pierce, Duncan, Beitling & Shute, Kansas City, for petitioner.
Lawrence F. Gepford, Jackson County Pros., R. Bruce Sears, Asst. Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus by which the petitioner, John Sherman Miles, seeks to be discharged from the custody of Arvid Owsley, Sheriff of Jackson County, who restrains him of his liberty by virtue of a commitment for contempt entered against him by the Circuit Court of Jackson County on a charge and judgment that Miles attempted to tamper with a juror and thereby to interfere with the administration of justice. The circuit court sentenced him to confinement in the county jail for 12 months and to pay a fine of $1,000.00. Sufficient it is to say that appropriate pleadings have put this proceeding properly at issue and that it has been submitted to us on these pleadings, the transcript of testimony on which the trial court based its commitment, the commitment itself, and the oral arguments and written briefs in this court.
Our view of this controversy requires that we set out the commitment in full to enable easy comparison of its recitals with the observations and rulings we make in deciding this proceeding. Its recitals follow:
'Now on this 30th day of March, 1966, the Court having heretofore on March 23, 1966, heard the evidence in this matter and taken the same under advisement, now on this day being fully advised, finds beyond a reasonable doubt as follows:
The petitioner and the respondent are in agreement that the commitment is for indirect criminal contempt and they are correct. Ex parte Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 106 S.W. 990, 996--998, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 389; Curtis v. Tozer, Mo.App., 374 S.W.2d 557, 568. The petitioner contends that a review by us of the evidence before the committing court will establish that it was insufficient to support the commitment and therefore that he is entitled to be discharged. Although the petitioner and the respondent are in disagreement concerning the extent of the review we must make of the evidence, an unvarying line of decisions firmly establishes the rule that the commitment is not conclusive on us and that it is our duty to go behind its recitals and to analyze all of the evidence on which they are based and to determine whether they are supported by the evidence. Ex parte Creasy, 243 Mo. 679, 148 S.W. 914, 41 L.R.A.,N.S., 478; Osborne v. Purdome, Mo., 250 S.W.2d 159; Curtis v. Tozer, supra, 374 S.W.2d l.c. 570. Furthermore, if we find that the recitals of the commitment are supported by the evidence, we must further find that such evidence establishes petitioner's guilt of indirect criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. In Curtis v. Tozer, supra, l.c. 581, the St. Louis Court of Appeals, dealing with a habeas corpus proceeding brought by a number of petitioners committed for indirect criminal contempt, said: Following this declaration of the law, the court examined the testimony for and against each petitioner and determined as to each whether he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioners not shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were discharged.
The relevant evidence was must review was as follows: Fred L. Johnson testified that on January 31, 1966, he was serving as a juror in the Circuit Court of Jackson County in a criminal case entitled 'State of Missouri v. John Sherman Miles', the petitioner. The trial commenced on that day and was recessed at 4:30 P.M. until the next day. Johnson went home and shortly received a telephone call from Cecil Wendleton who worked with him as a meat cutter at Topper's Food Market in Kansas City. Asked what the nature of the call was, he testified According to the record, this is the extent of the conversation Johnson said he had with Wendleton that day. However, Johnson testified that the conversation 'worried' him and the next morning he called Wendleton 'and told him exactly that I needed to know what I asked him the day before, and I said, I just asked him if anybody had wanted me to do anything and he said no, that he was just wondering how the trial was going.' When he went to court that morning he informed the judge of these conversations and a mistrial was declared.
Cecil Wendleton testified that on January 31, 1966, 'about 5:15' P.M. one Al Sullivan telephoned him. The testimony of what Sullivan said to Wendleton during this call is woefully sketchy, obscure and unsatisfactory. The most that was elicited from Wendleton regarding the subject to Sullivan's call resulted from an effort finally made by the court: He testified that Sullivan requested him to call Johnson as a personal favor to him. A study of this record from end to end fails to disclose exactly what Sullivan wanted Wendleton to say to juror Johnson, unless it is to be inferred from what Wendleton did say to him when he called him at Sullivan's request about five minutes after Sullivan's call. He testified: 'I said, Hello, Fred, how are you,' and he said, 'Hello Cec', he calls me instead of Cecil, and I said, 'How is your jury duty doing,' something like that and I think he said, 'All right' and I asked him, I said, 'What is it, the John Miles case?' and he said 'Yes'--he didn't say yes, he said 'How do you know that?' I told him I had heard it and--I am trying to remember. He kept asking me how I knew it, and I told him I had just heard it and that I had known him (petitioner) a long time. If he (Johnson) would stand up and say a good word, or something like that. * * *.' He also testified that he told Johnson that Miles was his friend and that he was 'a good boy, or something like that.' He admitted that juror Johnson did call him the next morning but his version of the conversation differs from that of Johnson. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Girard v. Percich
... ... While operating on public streets they would maneuver their vehicles in front of his trucks and at times drive at speeds of less than five miles per hour. At other intervals along the route they would jam on their brakes or come to complete halt in traffic lanes in an effort to bring about ... State ex rel. Wendt v. Journey, 492 S.W.2d 861 (Mo.App.1973); Ex Parte Miles, 406 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.App.1966). The elements are actual knowledge of the restraining order 13 and willful conduct in violation of its terms ... ...
-
Reeves v. Moreland
... ... trial court's findings are supported by the evidence. Ex parte Neal, 507 S.W.2d 674 (Mo.App.1974); Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App.1970). In making this determination, we view the evidence in ... Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, supra; Ex Parte Miles, 406 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.App.1966) ... Ramsey, supra, 690 ... Petitioner Reeves, as Recording Secretary of Local 13889, ... ...
-
Ramsey v. Grayland, 39595
... Page 682 ... 567 S.W.2d 682 ... Ex parte David RAMSEY et al., Petitioners, ... Derek GRAYLAND, etc., Respondent ... No. 39595 ... Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, ... Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, supra; Ex Parte Miles, 406 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.App.1966) ... We conclude there was substantial evidence to support a finding that petitioners had actual ... ...
-
Vokolek v. Carnes
...512 S.W.2d 112 ... Ex parte John VOKOLEK, Petitioner, ... William Kenneth CARNES, Sheriff, Jackson County, and James ... Bergfalk, Acting Director, Department of ... In the case of Ex parte Miles, 406 S.W.2d 107, 114 (Mo.App.1966), the court said: ' ... Our appellate courts have held consistently and repeatedly that, in contempt proceedings, ... ...