McIntire v. State, 30871
| Decision Date | 10 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30871,30871 |
| Citation | 248 Ind. 142,223 N.E.2d 347 |
| Parties | Richard L. McINTIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, William H. Miller, Judge of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, and the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rice & Van Stone, Evansville, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Douglas B. McFadden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Malcolm G. Montgomery, Jr., Evansville, for appellees William H. Miller, Judge, and Vanderburgh Circuit Court.
This is an appeal from a conviction of contempt of court in which the appellant was sentenced to ninety days at the Indiana State Farm and fined $50.00 and costs.
The appellant contends that the trial court erroneously charged and convicted the appellant of direct criminal contempt of court and that the facts do not sustain such a charge. The facts appear to be as follows:
One Robert Jay had been convicted of second degree burglary in the Venderburgh Circuit Court. At the time of his sentencing, his attorney, Mr. John Clouse, told the defendant's (Jay's) wife 'that it did not look good for her husband.' She replied that it had better look good because she had paid $300.00. Upon further inquiry, she told Mr. Clouse that the appellant, Richard L. McIntire, had told her he could get her husband 'a break' by talking to the judge, and asked her for money on June 12, 1965. The appellant, Richard L. McIntire, told her that it would take $300.00 for three individuals at $100.00 per man, and indicated the money was for the judge, the prosecutor and a third party. He first quoted a price of $600.00 at a rate of $200.00 per man, but then agreed on $300.00. Mrs. Jay lacked funds to support her family in view of the possible incarceration and imprisonment of her husband, and had applied to the Pigeon Township Trustee for relief. Her request was being investigated by the appellant, McIntire, for the trustee's office.
Mrs. Jay stated that thereafter she collected $25.00 from the brother-in-law, $125.00 from a friend, $25.00 from her father-in-law and $25.00 from another brother-in-law, and that she gave this to McIntire, the appellant, and he said he would lend her the other $25.00. Attorney Clouse immediately called the prosecuting attorney and they reported this story to the judge in his chambers. A few days later, on June 28, 1965, the court held a hearing at which Mrs. Jay testified, as related above.
At the time of the taking of this testimony, the appellant McIntire was present and denied the charges. The court stated:
It is further contended by the appellant that this contempt proceeding was not brought in the name of the State of Indiana, as criminal contempt actions should be brought, and that the prosecuting attorney declined to initiate any proceedings on behalf of the State. The record shows that the prosecuting attorney, O. H. Roberts, and the court had the following colloquy:
'Mr. Roberts: Your honor, please, as I understand it from the conversations that I have had with you, you have asked me as an officer of the Court to question the witnesses in this proceedings this morning.
'Court: That is correct.
'Mr. Roberts: I want it understood because there is nothing filed by my office in this action.
'Court: That is right.'
In this connection we give no emphasis to this technical contention for the reason that in direct contempt proceedings the court has inherent power to take such action as is necessary to maintain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skolnick v. State, PS
...contempt; they are merely legislative recognition of the court's inherent power to cite and punish for contempt. McIntire v. 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 contemp......
-
Jacobsen v. State
...criminal contempt is not dependent upon its jurisdiction of the contemnor or of the subject matter of a case. In McIntire v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 142, 223 N.E.2d 347, the Indiana Supreme Court wrote: "In direct contempt proceedings the court has inherent power to take such action as is ne......
-
Russell v. State
...State, (1979) Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 1156, cert. denied, (1980) 445 U.S. 906, 100 S.Ct. 1085, 63 L.Ed.2d 323. Accord, McIntire v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 142, 223 N.E.2d 347; LaGrange v. State, (1958) 238 Ind. 689, 153 N.E.2d 593. "To protect itself against gross violations of decency and deco......
-
Skolnick v. State
...257. Direct contempt is an act which disturbs or interrupts court proceedings during the time a court is in session. McIntire v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 142, 223 N.E.2d 347. The offense deals primarily with the maintenance of order in the courtroom. Id. See also IC 1971, 34-4-7-1, 34-4-7-2 (......