Howell v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 21 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 514 S.W.2d 723,257 Ark. 134 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | William H. HOWELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent. 73--123. |
Tackett, Moore, Dowd & Harrelson, Texarkana, for petitioner.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by O. H. Hargraves, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.
This is a petition by William H. Howell for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Miller Chancery Court finding Howell guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentencing him to serve ten days in jail. We stayed the enforcement of the order pending our review of the proceedings--a review that has been delayed by the court reporter's inability to transcribe the testimony promptly. The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of an offense not specified in the order requiring him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. We find the petitioner's contention to be sustained by the record.
On December 3, 1971, the trial judge, sitting as a chancellor on exchange, granted a divorce to the petitioner's wife and awarded her the custody of the couple's two-year-old daughter, Susan, with certain visitation rights in the father. Various post-decretal hearings appear to have been held. The present controversy arises from such a hearing held on July 31, 1973, at which the court approved a proposed trip that the petitioner Howell desired to take with his daughter.
No testimony was taken at that hearing. Opposing counsel had jointly conferred with their clients and had agreed upon detailed plans for the trip. It was expected that Mr. Howell and Susan would be gone for about twelve days, stopping at specified places in Oklahoma, at Fayetteville, Arkansas, and at Marshall, Missouri. It was contemplated that Howell's mother, who lived in Oklahoma, would travel with her son and granddaughter for about seven days, including a four-day stop at Fayetteville. Howell's older brother (a doctor) was also to join the group.
The trip was completed as planned, except that Howell's mother was unable to be absent from her job and consequently did not accompany the others, as expected. Upon Howell's return to Texarkana his former wife filed a motion that he be cited for contempt, on the ground that he had failed to make certain telephone calls that he had agreed to make and that Howell's mother had not been present for at least two days during the trip. In response to that motion the trial judge issued an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crane, In re
...Bayless & Roberts, Inc., 548 P.2d 398, 407 (Alas.1976); State v. Cohen, 15 Ariz.App. 436, 489 P.2d 283, 287 (1971); Howell v. State, 257 Ark. 134, 514 S.W.2d 723, 724 (1974); In re Coleman, 12 Cal.3d 568, 116 Cal.Rptr. 381, 384, 526 P.2d 533, 536 (1974); In re Pechnick, 128 Colo. 177, 261 P......
-
Springdale Bd. of Educ. v. Bowman by Luker, 87-147
... ... To the contrary, the Fortman court, quoting from Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W.2d 3 (1962), said: ... In this State a broad discretion is vested in the board of directors of each school district in the matter of directing the operation of the schools and a chancery ... ...
-
Jolly v. Jolly, 86-68
...N.Y.S.2d 775 (1945). A criminal contempt citation must be based on evidence showing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Howell v. State, 257 Ark. 134, 514 S.W.2d 723 (1974). When the question is whether false testimony is contumacious, a contempt citation should not follow from proof showing t......
-
Edwards v. Jameson, 84-95
...reasonable certainty of the charge against him. Henderson v. Dudley, 264 Ark. 697, 704, 713, 574 S.W.2d 658 (1978); Howell v. State, 257 Ark. 134, 514 S.W.2d 723 (1974); Roberts v. Tatum, 171 Ark. 148, 283 S.W. 45 (1926); CarlLee v. State, 102 Ark. 122, 143 S.W. 909 Here the only written ac......