Joint Legislative Committee of Legislature v. Strain
| Decision Date | 01 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | 51605,No. 31,Nos. 51567,No. 76,31,76,s. 51567 |
| Parties | The JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF the LEGISLATURE of the State of Louisiana Created By Senate Concurrent ResolutionAs Amended By Senate Concurrent Resolutionof the Louisiana Legislature of 1970 v. James R. STRAIN. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Pugh & Nelson, Robert G. Pugh, Shreveport, for defendant-applicant.
Sanders, Miller, Downing & Kean, R. Gordon Kean, Jr., John V. Parker, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-respondent.
By Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 31, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 76, a Joint Legislative Committee was established to investigate organized crime in Louisiana as it relates to state and local government officials. The resolution charges the committee to 'undertake an immediate comprehensive in-depth investigation, inquiry and hearings into all matters relating to the question of corrupt and/or criminal influence on the government of this state and/or its political subdivisions and the officials and employees of either.'
The resolution invested the committee with 'the power and authority to hold public hearings, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, compel the production of books, documents, and records, . . ..' Further, the resolution set forth,
. . . that failure to comply with any order of the committee issued in accordance with or under authority of this Resolution, refusal to testify, or any act of disrespect of or disorderly or contemptuous behavior before the committee shall constitute contempt of the committee and the committee, through its counsel, shall have the power and authority to institute proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction for the punishment thereof in accordance with the penalties fixed by Article III, Section II (sic) 1 of the Louisiana Constitution and, . . . that in addition to the power and authority of the committee to punish for contempt as provided in Article III, Section II (sic) of the Constitution, the committee also shall have the power and authority to invoke the provisions of R.S. 24:4 through R.S. 24:6 2 in order to subject persons guilty of contempt of the committee to the penalties provided for therein.
The committee was required by the resolution to submit its final report and recommendations to the legislature and the Governor not later than thirty days prior to the day on which the 1971 legislature convened in regular session.
During the month of May 1970 the committee began its investigations, holding a series of hearings at which many witnesses testified. At these hearings defendant Strain, an elected Representative to the legislature from Caddo Parish, testified before the committee relative to an alleged attempt to unlawfully influence his vote during the 1970 session of the legislature.
Subsequently, Strain made public statements that he possessed evidence, including tape recordings, relating to attempts to unlawfully influence his vote in the legislature not previously presented to the committee.
Accordingly, on January 28, 1971, the committee issued a subpoena directed to Representative Strain ordering his appearance before the committee at a hearing to be held on February 4, 1971 in Baton Rouge and ordering him to bring with him certain tape recordings and transcripts or excerpts thereof.
Strain did not appear and did not produce the documents, papers or recordings called for. Whereupon the committee instituted this proceeding in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. It is a rule to show cause why Strain should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of the committee and the legislature. The committee is represented in these proceedings by its counsel.
Strain filed a number of exceptions, all of which were overruled. The trial judge then held Strain in contempt of the committee and the legislature, sentencing him to jail for ten days, execution of the sentence to await further orders of the Court.
An appeal to the First Circuit was dismissed. The court reasoned it had no appellate jurisdiction in the matter. 248 So.2d 105. Strain applied for certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal and made separate application to review the judgment of contempt rendered by the trial court. Both applications are granted.
A holding that the Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction would ordinarily result in a remand to that court to consider the case on appeal. We will therefore first consider the correctness of the First Circuit's finding that it had no appellate jurisdiction in this contempt proceeding.
The contention that the Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction is based upon the argument that Article VII, Section 29, of the Louisiana Constitution grants to courts of appeal appellate jurisdiction over 'all civil and probate matters of which . . . the district courts throughout the state have exclusive original jurisdiction.'
The fault of this argument lies in its assumption that this contempt proceeding is 'civil' within the contemplation of Article VII, Section 29, of the Constitution. Punishment for this offense under Article III, Section 11, of the Constitution is by imprisonment, not to exceed ten days. Under Section 4 of Title 24 of the Revised Statutes contempt of the legislature is punishable by a fine and by imprisonment of not more than six months. Since the refusal to appear in answer to the subpoena is not a direct contempt of the committee it is a constructive contempt. Cf. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 24. Like criminal contempt of court, it is properly triable by a rule to show cause alleging the facts constituting the contempt. Cf. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 24. Trial for contempt is a summary proceeding before the judge alone. La.Const. art. 1 § 9; art. 7 § 41; La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 24. These provisions relating to contempt of court do not in terms apply to tribunals other than courts. However, although the legislature is not a court, the procedure prescribed for contempt of court may be utilized for contempt of the legislature when it does not contravene express statutory or constitutional provisions. State ex rel. Milling v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 154 La. 752, 98 So. 175 (1923). Thus the legislature prescribed, by adoption of the concurrent resolution, that 'the Committee, through its counsel, shall have the power and authority to institute proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction for the punishment thereof in accordance with the penalties fixed by Article III, Section II (sic 11) of the Louisiana Constitution.' In so doing the legislature determined to submit all such contempts of this committee to the judiciary for trial and punishment. These contempt proceedings are therefore properly triable by the courts under the procedure adopted here. Section 5 of Title 24 of the Revised Statutes specifically provides that when contempt of the legislature occurs 'the district attorney shall institute and prosecute a Criminal proceeding against the Accused.'
As we pointed out in Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Bates, 258 La. 1049, 249 So.2d 127 (1971), the similarity between criminal contempt and civil contempt is striking. We recognized there, despite the similarity between civil and criminal contempt, that criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it is a violation of law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine and imprisonment or both. In the words of MR. JUSTICE HOLMES: 'If such acts are not criminal, we are in error as to the most fundamental characteristic of crimes as that word has been understood in English speech.'
Among other distinctions, criminal contempt differs from civil contempt in that criminal contempt involves a fixed punishment for the transgression, while civil contempt is merely a means of compelling compliance with lawful orders of the court. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Bates, ibid.
In the federal system contempt of Congress is treated as a crime. By statute, when a person is summoned to appear before a congressional committee or to produce documents and fails to do so, and the failure is reported to either house in the form of a statement of fact, the presiding officer certifies the statement to the United States attorney, who brings the matter before the grand jury. From there, assuming a true bill is returned, it is handled like other true bills. 2 U.S.C. § 194.
The strong implication, the almost implicit inference, to be gained is that contempt is a criminal matter.
Aside from our finding that this contempt proceeding is criminal, or at least criminal in nature, and, therefore, not appealable to the courts of appeal, for it is not a 'civil' matter of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, La.Const. art. 7 § 29, the rule has been well-founded in our jurisprudence that a conviction and sentence of contempt are not appealable in the absence of a constitutional or statutory provision for review. Hattier v. Martinez, 197 La. 121, 1 So.2d 51 (1941); State ex rel. Milling v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 154 La. 752, 98 So. 175 (1923); City of Gretna v. Rossner, 154 La. 117, 97 So. 335 (1923); State ex rel. Dowling v. Ray, 150 La. 1030, 91 So. 443 (1922) and State ex rel. Farmer v. Judge Parish Court of Ouachita, 31 La.Ann. 116 (1879); Pearce v. Dozier, 181 So.2d 432 (La.App.1965). No statutory or constitutional provision for review of this contempt proceeding having been pointed out, and none having been discovered in our research, this contempt proceeding was not appealable and the Court of Appeal properly dismissed the appeal. 248 So.2d 105.
Having concluded that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction, the merits of the trial court judgment must be reviewed under our supervisory jurisdiction.
Representative Strain filed an exception...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orleans Parish School Bd. v. Williams
... ... to the constitutional provision requiring legislative action to effect a waiver for, whenever the public agency ... , except through special authorization of the legislature. The class is well-defined and all within it are similarly ... Joint Legislative Committee of Legislature v. Strain, 263 La ... ...
-
Gulf Oxygen Welder's Supply Profit Sharing Plan and Trust Agreement, In re
... ... power of the people exercised through the state legislature. In its exercise of the entire legislative power of the ... 449, 40 U.S. 449, 10 L.Ed. 800 (1841); Joint Legislative Committee of Legislature v. Strain, 263 La ... ...
-
Webb v. Franks Inv. Co.
... ... court concerning plat dedications and from the Legislature's early use of the term "dedication" in legislation ... This legislative implication from the 1910 Act was actually noted by the ... Joint Legislative Comm. v. Strain, 263 La. 488, 268 So. 2d 629 ... ...
-
Webb v. Franks Inv. Co.
... ... court concerning plat dedications and from the Legislature's early use of the term dedication in legislation predating ... This legislative implication from the 1910 Act was actually noted by the ... Joint Legislative Comm. v. Strain, 263 La. 488, 268 So.2d 629 ... ...