Hinton v. State, 45302
| Decision Date | 05 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45302,45302 |
| Citation | 222 So.2d 690 |
| Parties | William B. HINTON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
A. S. Scott, Jr., Carl Dexter Ford, Laurel, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
The appellant, William B. Hinton, was found guilty of constructive contempt of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi, and was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for a period of six months and to pay a fine of $500.
The Information charged:
'I. That heretofore at this term of Circuit Court there was on the docket of this Court the case styled State of Mississippi vs. Lucille Yount, #3038, set for trial June 19, 1968. That a jury was lawfully drawn to serve for the week beginning Monday, June 17, 1968, and that the Defendant, William B. Hinton, was one of the jurors drawn to serve during said week.
'II. That thereafter on the aforesaid trial date the Defendant, together with the other members of the said jury panel, were seated in the jury box after being sworn by the Clerk of said Court, according to law, to, amongst other things, 'well and truly answer all questions propounded to them concerning their qualifications as prospective jurors' in the case at bar.
'That the Court in its preliminary examination of all of said jurors inquired whether any of them or their families were represented by any of the lawyers trying the aforesaid case and all of said jurors, including the Defendant, gave a negative answer.
'That the aforesaid jury was then tendered to the District Attorney and he on voir dire examination, amongst other questions, asked the said jury the following: 'Do the attorneys for the Defendant represent any of you jurors or any member of your families in any matter or in any Court at the present time or have they in the past?' To this question, all of the prospective jurors on said jury panel, including the Defendant, gave a negative answer.
'That after the voir dire examination was concluded and at a time when the District Attorney had not exhausted all of his peremptory challenges on the jury for the State of Mississippi, twelve members of said jury panel, including the Defendant, were accepted by both parties as the trial jury and were lawfully sworn to try the said case.
'That said juror, William B. Hinton, well knew that said Percy Quinn was his wife's lawyer, as aforesaid, and knowingly, wilfully, falsely and corruptly concealed said fact from the said District Attorney on the aforesaid voir dire examination; and had he told the truth and revealed said relationship between he and his said family and said lawyer for the Defendant on trial, the said William B. Hinton would have been challenged and excused for cause or peremptorily challenged by the District Attorney at said time when the State of Mississippi had not exhausted its peremptory challenges, according to law.
The assignment of error contends that three errors were committed by the circuit court. We find that only one of these assignments of error merits comment and discussion by this Court. That assignment is that the appellant should have been proceeded against, if at all, on an indictment and with a jury.
In Clark v. United States, 61 F.2d 695 (8th Cir. 1932), it was held that the falsity of responses to the district judge of a prospective juror who served on a mail fraud case was not known to the judge and the judge had no way of knowing the falsity thereof.
The court said:
'We agree with the argument of counsel that the contempt, if any, was what the law regards as a 'constructive' contempt, rather than a 'direct' one.
'The alleged contempt, while within the presence of the court, could not be known to the court in its judicial knowledge or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Passmore
...conviction where, by statute, he could have been fined up to $1,000 or sentenced to up to twelve months in prison. In Hinton v. State, 222 So.2d 690, 692 (Miss.1969), the Supreme Court of Mississippi concluded, based on Bloom, "where the confinement is not more than six months and the fine ......
-
In re Adoption Miss. Rules of Criminal Procedure
...So. 2d 317, 318 (Miss. 1999) (citing Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 116 S. Ct. 2163, 135 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1996)); Hinton v. State, 222 So. 2d 690, 692 (Miss. 1969). Mississippi Code Section 21-23-7 does not provide for a jury trial in municipal court. Section (b) follows common practic......
-
Walls v. Spell, 97-CA-00378-SCT.
...The offense is petty where the defendant was sentenced to six months and fined $500.00 for constructive contempt. Hinton v. State, 222 So.2d 690, 692 (Miss.1969); Clark v. State, 332 So.2d 415 (Miss.1976). This Court should look to the punishment imposed when determining whether an offense ......
-
McGowan v. State
...nature. What is significant is whether, as in the case at bar, there was not only a fine imposed, but also a jail term. In Hinton v. State, 222 So.2d 690 (Miss.1969), this Court quoted at length from the Bloom case, supra, and We conclude that where the confinement is not more than six mont......