Garland v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1,2,No. 37622,37622,s. 1 |
| Citation | 110 S.E.2d 143,99 Ga.App. 826 |
| Parties | Reuben A. GARLAND v. STATE of Georgia |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. It is a proper function of this court to review timely assignments of error relating to orders of the trial court in cases of summary direct criminal contempt. City of Macon v. Massey, 214 Ga. 589(1), 106 S.E.2d 23.
2. This court recognizes the inherent power of every court to punish for contempt which is necessary in order that it may carry on the administration of justice and preserve order and decorum.
3. The appellate courts of this State are courts for the trial and correction of errors of law based upon the record on appeal. This record consists only of the orders of the trial court holding the defendant in contempt. They are excepted to on the ground that they are contrary to law, which exception raises the question as to whether they are valid orders, and, if so, whether the trial court abused his discretion in holding the defendant in contempt, which latter question depends upon the facts relating the misconduct found by the court to have been committed by the defendant in his presence. Since the orders excepted to contain no such factual holdings, the question as to the abuse of the discretion of the trial court cannot be reviewed by this court. Accordingly, the orders are void.
4. This court is not passing on the question of whether or not the defendant is guilty of contempt of court, but only holds that the orders of the trial court are insufficient to afford this court the opportunity to review the discretion of the trial court, and that the defendant is entitled to such an order adjudging him in contempt as will form a proper basis for review. In a direct summary criminal contempt proceeding where there is no petition, rule nisi, or evidence, and where the order adjudging the defendant is the only record in the case, an order containing no facts specifying the misconduct of the defendant is insufficient to form the basis for review and is void.
Reuben A. Garland, an attorney at law practicing his profession in Atlanta, Fulton County, and evirons, was counsel for and represented the defendant, George Michael Bright, in a criminal case, wherein said defendant had been indicted along with certain other named persons and charged with the bombing of a Jewish Temple located on Peachtree Road, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. After a trial lasting from January 12, 1959, through January 23, 1959, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Judge Jeptha C. Tanksley presiding, a verdict was rendered by the jury, finding the said George Michael Bright not guilty of the crime charged. Immediately following the return into said court of the jury's verdict, the said Garland was called before the Bar, and Judge Tanksley pronounced him to have been in contempt of the court during said trial, same being a direct or criminal contempt taking place during the trial and in the immediate presence of the trial judge. The said attorney was charged in two paragraphs with being guilty of such contempt in the following language, namely:
'Paragraph 1: The above styled case having been tried in this court from January 12, 1959, through January 23, 1959, and Reuben A. Garland having appeared in this court throughout the trial as attorney for the defendant, George Michael Bright, and said Reuben A. Garland during said trial having wilfully made numerous inflammatory and prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury, and the said Reuben A. Garland having made numerous contemptuous and prejudicial remarks to the court, and the said Garland having wilfully suggested answers and information to witnesses while testifying after specific instructions from the court not to do so, all as appears in connection with the testimony of the witnesses, Mrs. Janice Rothschild, Charles B. Smith, L. E. Rogers, Jimmie Dave Devore, Mrs. Marilyn Craig and Lewis Glover in the record of said case, and it further appearing that the said conduct of Reuben A. Garland was intended by said Garland to be contemptuous of the court, and it further appearing that said conduct did interfere with the lawful administration of justice, and said conduct having occurred in open court and in the presence of the court.
'The said Reuben A. Garland, because of the conduct referred to in this Paragraph 1 of this Order is now considered and adjudged to be in contempt of the court, and it is hereby ordered that he be confined in the jail of Fulton County for a period of twenty (20) days as punishment for said contemptuous conduct.
'Paragraph 2: It further appearing that the said Reuben A. Garland did during the testimony of the witness, R. E. Little, make numerous contemptuous remarks and arguments to the court, and it further appearing that the said Reuben A. Garland did, while this witness was testifying, refuse again and again to yield to, and to obey the instructions of the court, and it further appearing that said conduct was contemptuous of the court, and all of said conduct referred to in this Paragraph 2 of this Order having occurred in open court and in the presence of the court, and having occurred during the testimony of R. E. Little, and being distinct and separate acts from that referred to in Paragraph 1 of this order, and said conduct having been contemptuous of the court, and having interfered with the lawful administration of justice, the said Reuben A. Garland, because of the conduct referred to in this Paragraph 2 of this Order, is hereby considered and adjudged to be in contempt of court, and it is hereby ordered that he shall be confined in the jail of Fulton County for a period of twenty (20) days as punishment for this said contempt, said twenty (20) days period of confinement referred to in this Paragraph 2 of this order to follow immediately upon the termination and completion of the period of confinement ordered in Paragraph 1 of this Order.
'Paragraph 3: The Sheriff of this County, or his lawful Deputy, is hereby ordered to remove the said Reuben A. Garland from the bar of this court to the Fulton County jail, and there to confine him for a period of twenty (20) days as provided in Paragraph 1 of this order.
'The Sheriff of this County, or his lawful Deputy, is further ordered, upon the termination of the confinement referred to in Paragraph 1 of this order, to immediately confine the said Reuben A. Garland in the Fulton County jail for a second period of twenty (20) days as provided in Paragraph 2 of this order.
'This 23 day of January, 1959.
'[Signed] Jeptha C. Tanksley,
Superior Court
Atlanta Judicial Circuit.'
The defendant was confined in the common jail where he remained for approximately five days during which time he applied to the trial court for a supersedeas, and upon same being denied there made application to this court where the same was granted. See Garland v. Tanksley, 99 Ga.App. 201, 107 S.E.2d 866. Subsequently a writ of error was filed in this court assigning error on the judgment of the trial court.
J. Walter LeCraw, Wm. G. McRae, Reuben A. Garland, pro se, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Webb, Sol. Gen., Carl B. Copeland, Asst. Sol. Gen., E. L. Tiller, Asst. Sol. Gen., William G. Grant, William F. Buchanan, Robert W. Spears, Lewis R. Slaton, Herbert Johnson, Thomas B. Branch, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. The question has been raised, and should first be decided here, whether a direct summary criminal contempt judgment is appealable. We are dealing here with that species of contempt arising in the presence of the court which tends to scandalize it and hinder or obstruct the orderly processes of the administration of justice, the preservation of order and decorum in the court, and the respect and authority with which our courts must be clothed to achieve the high purpose upon which our civilized existence depends. We entertain no doubt whatever but that such a decision is appealable, in the sense that a writ of error may be sued out to an appropriate reviewing court to present to that court for decision the question of whether any error of law has been committed. Admittedly, there are but few cases in this State where this has been done, for an examination of cases shows that in all cases of constructive contempt it is essential, and in many appealed cases involving direct contempt it has been usual, for citation to issue and a hearing granted. But where a direct contempt is committed in the presence of the court, the offender is not entitled as a matter of right to a hearing before the court. On the other hand the court may, as here, act on its own knowledge of the facts and proceed to impose punishment for the contempt. While the court may in its discretion allow such a hearing, the refusal to do so does not deprive the defendant of the due process of law guaranteed by the State and Federal constitutions. White v. George, 195 Ga. 465, 24 S.E.2d 787. The appeal by means of writ of certiorari (White v. State, 71 Ga.App. 512, 31 S.E.2d 78), while not deciding the question directly presented as to whether the judgment was appealable, held that the record showed a contempt to have been committed in fact and that the judgment of the superior court dismissing the petition for certiorari was without error. In the recent case of City of Macon v. Massey, 214 Ga. 589, 106 S.E.2d 23, the Supreme Court, overruling the Court of Appeals (which had held that the contempt in question was an indirect or constructive contempt), held the acts alleged to be a direct criminal contempt and directly passed upon its jurisdiction to review the ruling upon application to it by writ of certiorari. Other cases holding the decision reviewable are mentioned in the next division of this opinion.
2. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garland v. State
...trial court except in accordance with the record made under the judge's original certificate. This is the same case as Garland v. State, 99 Ga.App. 826, 110 S.E.2d 143. On its previous appearance before this court, it was held that the order holding the respondent in contempt was void since......
-
Barnes v. Tant, 21261
... ... the weekends and during her summer vacation, and that defendant did not comply with the mandate of the decree but moved the children out of the State for two months and kept them for six more months at Savannah, Georgia, without informing plaintiff where they were, thereby preventing her from ... 105, 52 S.E.2d 598. See also Wheeler v. Harrison, 57 Ga. 24, and Carson v. Ennis, 146 Ga. 726. 728, 92 S.E. 221, L.R.A.1917E, 650; Garland ... v. State of Georgia, 99 Ga.App. 826, 830, 110 S.E.2d 143 ... The notice given by the rule nisi is to afford the accused a ... ...
-
Crudup v. State
...for plaintiff error. C. E. Smith, Jr., Sol. Gen., Gainesville, for defendant in error. HALL, Judge. 1. In Garland v. State of Ga., 99 Ga.App. 826, 832, 110 S.E.2d 143, 147, this court held that a judgment of contempt must contain 'factual holdings setting out the misconduct on the part of t......
-
Farmer v. Holton
...v. State, 131 Ga.App. 355, 359, 206 S.E.2d 79, 81, supra; White v. George, 195 Ga. 465, 469, 24 S.E.2d 787 (1943); Garland v. State, 99 Ga.App. 826, 831, 110 S.E.2d 143 (1959). 3. "(T)he matter is not, strictly speaking, a criminal case, but is only quasi-criminal. It is tried under the rul......