Grimm v. State, 29694

Citation240 Ind. 125,162 N.E.2d 454
Decision Date19 November 1959
Docket NumberNo. 29694,29694
PartiesHoward S. GRIMM, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Howard S. Grimm, Jr., Auburn, pro se.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Spencer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment convicting appellant of a direct contempt of the Noble Circuit Court.

Appellant is an attorney who at the time of the alleged contempt was engaged in representing two defendants charged with motor vehicle offenses in the Noble Circuit Court.

The statement reduced to writing by the judge of said court was in substance that the court stated to the accused in Cause No. 5225 (who was represented by appellant), that the reason said accused's bond was being set was because he and his attorney (the appellant) had failed to appear on March 10, 1958, the second arraignment date of appellant in said cause. Appellant turned to his client and answered: 'That is not so; I was present.' He made that statement several times. He told his client at various times that the court would not enter a plea of not guilty for him. The court in turn stated this statement was a falsehood and he was holding appellant in direct contempt of court for charging the court with fraud, and gave appellant-attorney an opportunity to withdraw or apologize for making the statement. Appellant made no apology and he was thereupon charged with direct contempt. Upon his finding of guilty appellant was fined in the sum of $50 and sentenced to 10 days in jail.

Some days later appellant filed motion to reconsider 1 and motion for new trial, and the court before ruling on said motions modified the court's previous statement and finding so as to show for the first time that appellant's statements were made in a rude, insolent, and disrespectful manner. The trial judge stated the record containing the finding and judgment was being modified and clarified 'in order to aid the Supreme Court in case of appeal.' The court then overruled the motion to reconsider and the motion for new trial.

Appellant contends on this appeal that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.

It is well settled in direct contempt proceedings that this court will accept as true the statement entered of record by the lower court of the matter constituting the contempt, but will also examine the record, if necessary, to determine whether the acts alleged to be contemptuous do, in fact, constitute actions of contempt. State ex rel. Stanton v. murray, Stanton v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 223, 108 N.E.2d 251; Blankenbaker v. State, 1929, 201 Ind. 142, 166 N.E. 265.

The underlying basis for proceedings in contempt was patly stated by Lairy, C. J., in Ray v. State, 1917, 186 Ind. 396, 404, 114 N.E. 866, 869, as follows:

'[The right to punish for contempt] * * * is necessary to the preservation of order, to the enforcement of judgments, writs and orders, and therefore is essential to the due administration of justice. Fortunately, the occasion for the exercise of this power does not often arise, and it is seldom exercised by the courts except in extreme cases. So long as critics confine their criticism to facts and base them upon the decisions of the court they commit no contempt no matter how severe the criticism may be; but when they pass beyond that line and charge that judicial conduct was influenced by improper, corrupt or selfish motives, or that such conduct was affected by political prejudice or interest, the tendency is to poison the foundation of justice and create distrust, and destroy the confidence of the people in their courts. A feeling thus engendered would create dissatisfaction with all judicial determination; it would affect the standing and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 8, 1981
    ...in fact, constitute contempt." State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray, (1952) 231 Ind. 223, 235, 108 N.E.2d 251, 257. Accord, Grimm v. State, (1959) 240 Ind. 125, 162 N.E.2d 454. In the instant case the trial judge alleged that for Russell "to utter the words 'to shut up' to an officer of this cou......
  • Skolnick v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 25, 1979
    ...contumacious nature of these allegations in the pleadings is wholly apparent. As the Indiana Supreme Court wrote in Grimm v. State (1959), 240 Ind. 125, 162 N.E.2d 454: "So long as critics (of court) confine their criticism to facts and base them upon the decisions of the court they commit ......
  • Marriage of Neiswinger, In re
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1985
    ...or comments regarding any future proceedings. See e.g. Brennan v. State, (1961) 242 Ind. 79, 173 N.E.2d 312; Grimm v. State, (1959) 240 Ind. 125, 162 N.E.2d 454; LaGrange v. State, (1958) 238 Ind. 689, 153 N.E.2d We have granted transfer because the Court of Appeals' conclusion that Meyer's......
  • Hopping v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 1, 1994
    ... ... 147, 141 N.E. 308; Coons v. State (1922), 191 Ind. 580, 134 N.E. 194. The concern is for the integrity of courts, not hearings or judges. Grimm v. State (1959), 240 Ind. 125, 127-28, 162 N.E.2d 454, 456 ...         Contempt of court involves disobedience of a court which undermines ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT