May, Matter of
| Decision Date | 09 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--975A163,1--975A163 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Danny J. MAY, Appellant, et al., Respondents in Proceeding for Direct Contempt of Court upon the Complaint of the Hon. Paul R. Schnaitter, Judge of the Switzerland Circuit Court. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
R. Davy Eaglesfield, III, Indianapolis, F. Thomas Schornhorst, Bloomington, for appellant.
Charles W. Cooper, Cooper, Cox, Jacobs & Kemper, Ted R. Todd, Hensley, Todd, Hocker & Castor, Merritt K. Alcorn, Leninger, Eckert & Alcorn, Madison, for appellees.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Walter F. Lockhart, Deputy Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for amici curiae.
This is an appeal from a conviction of direct criminal contempt arising out of statements made by May in a motion to correct errors and in a complaint for declaratory judgment filed in the Switzerland Circuit Court.
The issues upon appeal are whether the action was defective because the State was not made a party to the action; whether the judge of the Switzerland Circuit Court had jurisdiction to cite May for direct contempt of court; and whether May's acts were sufficient to constitute a direct contempt of court. We find no error and affirm May's conviction of contempt.
May first argues that the action is defective because it was not brought in the name of the State of Indiana. This same argument was disposed of by our Supreme Court in In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 30--31, 291 N.E.2d 698, 701.
. In re Perrello (1973), 260 Ind. 26, 30--31, 291 N.E.2d 698, 701.
May next argues, upon the basis of Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 79(11), that the judge of the Switzerland Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to cite him for direct contempt after the judge was named as a defendant in the action for declaratory judgment. We disagree.
First, May's conviction was based in part upon a portion of a motion to correct errors filed in the Switzerland Circuit Court directed to the court's judgment in an independent civil matter. Tril Rule 79(11) was inapplicable to this motion to correct errors, and the judgment of contempt could be affirmed upon the basis of statements contained within that motion.
Second, we do not interpret Trial Rule 79(11) to eliminate the power of the judge to cite a party for contempt for statements directed toward him in the pleadings merely because he is not the judge empowered to hear the merits of that case. Trial Rule 79(11) provides that whenever the judge of any court is a party to any proceeding, such judge shall at once disqualify himself. However, the fact that the judge may not be empowered to hear a particular case does not mean that he is without jurisdiction to cite one of the parties for contemptuous statements directed toward the judge in the pleadings since a charge of criminal contempt is independent of the action from which it arose. Allison v. State (1963), 243 Ind. 489, 187 N.E.2d 565.
May further argues that a judge named as a defendant ina civil suit is unable to make an objective decision as to the contemptuous nature of matters contained in the plaintiff's pleading. Regardless of the merit of this argument, it has no bearing upon this case since the contempt proceeding was held before a different judge.
May next argues that his actions in the present case did not constitute direct criminal contempt. However, Indiana case law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skolnick v. State, PS
... ... As these two appeals, PSC 354 and PSC 356, are concerned with the same subject matter and involve substantially the same trial court records, they are closely enough related for consolidation and have been consolidated under Ind ... State (1967), 248 Ind. 142, 223 N.E.2d 347; LaGrange v. State (1958),238 Ind. 689, 153 N.E.2d 593. Indiana courts have ruled further that one may be in direct contempt for filing in open court pleadings containing contumacious statements. Kerr v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 147, 141 N.E. 308. In ... ...
-
Jacobsen v. State
... ... and enter the courthouse, and that approximately 40 minutes later that attorney was addressing the trial judge in open court in the Skolnick matter. The affidavit further stated that after the attorney addressed the court, Skolnick addressed the court with interruptions until he was found guilty ... forth in the order of the court on the same, together with any statement made in explanation, extenuation, or denial thereof, which the defendant may make in response thereto; and the court shall thereupon pronounce judgment, either acquitting and discharging the defendant, or inflicting such ... ...
-
Skolnick v. State
... ... On July 28, 1975, in the afternoon, while near the courthouse a deputy sheriff handed Skolnick a paper stating 'The Court now sets this matter for hearing on July 29, 1975, at 2:00 p. m.' ... "3. Recently, Judge Alfred J. Pivarnik has twice previously taken advantage of ... Indiana courts, under their inherent power to convict and punish for contempt, have established as well that one may be guilty of direct contempt for filing in open court a pleading containing contumacious statements or materials. LaGrange v. State (1958), 238 Ind ... ...
-
Boggs v. State
... ... , under the inherent power theory the above statutory definitions of contempt are not so all-inclusive as to exclude other acts or conduct which may constitute contempt. For example, contemptuous statements in pleadings or official reports filed in court but not read in open court have also been ... State (1923), 194 Ind. 147, 141 N.E. 308; Coons v. State (1922), 191 Ind. 580, 134 N.E. 194; Matter of May (1976), Ind.App., 358 N.E.2d 138; Ind.Code 34-4-7-2, Supra. There, as here, the appellant was a third party [179 Ind.App. 613] to the ... ...