Muskus v. State

• Decision Date: 07 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 357,357
• Citation: 14 Md.App. 348,286 A.2d 783
• Parties: Eugene MUSKUS v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 348

14 Md.App. 348

286 A.2d 783

Eugene MUSKUS v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 357.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 7, 1972.

Edward P. Camus, Riverdale, with Camus & Keane, Riverdale, on the brief, for appellant.

Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom was Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and MORTON and MOYLAN, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

Judge Samuel J. DeBlasis found Assistant State's Attorney Eugene Muskus in direct criminal contempt of court on two occasions in the course of a defective delinquency jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County; fines in the amount of $25.00 and $10.00 respectively were assessed against Muskus, a bench warrant was issued, and he was jailed pending payment of the fines. In an opinion filed in support of his orders, Judge DeBlasis stated, with reference to the first contempt citation, that Muskus 'frequently debated the rulings of the court throughout the course of the proceedings even though he had been admonished not to do so.' As to the second contempt citation, Judge DeBlasis stated that Muskus 'refused to return to counsel table after a bench conference although ordered to do so on several occasions.' Judge DeBlasis concluded, presumably with reference to both contempt citations, that 'Muskus' conduct was arrogant and wilfully disobedient during the entire proceedings'; he said 'more particular reference is made to pages 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 41, 42, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, of the transcript for additional facts * * *.' At a hearing held on Muskus's motion for reconsideration of the contempt citations, he told Judge DeBlasis that because he did not intend to be contemptuous, and did not believe that he had been, he could not apologize for his conduct since to do so would constitute a deception on his part solely to placate the court and would itself be a contemptuous act. Judge DeBlasis denied Muskus's motion; he stated that Muskus did not show that he was remorseful for his conduct. In the course of his remarks, Judge DeBlasis said Muskus's 'conduct at that time was somewhat less than antagonistic, perhaps in the heat of battle, but I think he was just frankly, completely and totally in disregard of the position of the Court.'

On appeal Muskus contends that his conduct was not contemptuous, that he was not arrogant, disrespectful or wilfully disobedient. He claims that he was but advocating his case, zealously trying his best, though inexperienced. ¹

The pertinent background facts are these: At 1:50 p. m. on July 23, 1970, the case of State v. Sorrell was called for trial before Judge DeBlasis and a jury. Immediately after the jury was impaneled, Muskus requested a short continuance on behalf of the State; he explained to the court that its witness, Dr. Kelman, a staff psychiatrist at Patuxent Institution, was not then present in court but had been notified at 12:45 p. m. that trial was about to commence; that it would take thirty to forty-five minutes for the witness to arrive; that although the case had been set for trial at 10:00 a. m. that morning in another court room, it did not proceed as scheduled because of other pending matters in that court and that as a result, Dr. Kelman had been told that he would be contacted. Judge DeBlasis indicated his displeasure that the jury was required to wait on Dr. Kelman. He chastised Muskus for not having notified him in chambers that Dr. Kelman was not present in court. Muskus replied that he hadn't known previously to which court room the case would be assigned and therefore had not earlier notified the judge. The court asked Muskus if he had any other witnesses; he responded, saying 'This is a defective delinquent * * *,' at which time Judge DeBlasis interrupted him, stating:

'I know what it is. You don't have to tell me what it is. You are trying the Court's patience a little too much right this moment.'

Muskus told Judge DeBlasis that Dr. Kelman was his only witness. The court said:

'We will think about holding you in contempt. Do you have any other witnesses that you can present?'

Muskus replied:

'No. Your Honor, just one witness.'

Judge DeBlasis told both Muskus and the jury that unless Dr. Kelman was present in court in fifteen minutes, the court would consider granting a mistrial. Soon thereafter, Dr. Kelman arrived, and the case proceeded to trial.

Muskus questioned Dr. Kelman at length. He asked him relevant questions pertaining to the only issue in the case, viz., whether Sorrell was a defective delinquent within the meaning of Maryland Code, Article 31B, Section 5. ² Specifically, Muskus developed in full and orderly fashion the witness's professional qualifications, the nature and purpose of Patuxent Institution, and the type of diagnostic tests used to evaluate whether a person is a defective delinquent. Muskus introduced Sorrell's Patuxent record into evidence. He asked Dr. Kelman a number of relevant questions concerning medical, psychiatric, and psychological tests conducted by the Institution on Sorrell and the results of those tests. He asked Dr. Kelman pertinent questions relating to the substance of staff reports concerning Sorrell. He sought to elicit relevant information concerning Sorrell's social background and criminal history, including both his and the State's version of the attempted rape offense for which Sorrell was referred to Patuxent for evaluation. Judge DeBlasis told Muskus that there was no reason to go into the offense, to which Muskus replied:

'Your Honor, this is to give a background of the defendant * * * in a proper prospective.'

Judge DeBlasis told Muskus to limit his inquiry to Sorrell's behavioral pattern. Muskus responded that he believed Sorrell's counsel would go into detail with respect to the attempted rape offense; the court said it was not going to permit Muskus to argue the case and directed him 'to get to the essence of the case.'

Muskus then asked Dr. Kelman about Sorrell's past offenses. Sorrell objected. The court said that it was proper to outline 'the other crimes' which Sorrell had committed but told Muskus 'not to get into the essence of the crime' since it served no useful purpose. Thereafter, Dr. Kelman testified with respect to the attempted rape offense and stated it was the only crime committed by Sorrell as an adult. He related the details of the commission of the crime, after which Muskus questioned him further concerning Sorrell's family, school and marital history, and the results of his physical, psychiatric, psychological examinations. Muskus then asked Dr. Kelman to summarize his testimony. Judge DeBlasis indicated that the summary was unnecessary. This colloquy then followed:

'Mr. Muskus: Was there any objection by defense counsel?

The Court: No, but there is objection by the Court.

Mr. Muskus: Oh, excuse me.'

Dr. Kelman then testified that it was his opinion, and that of the Patuxent staff that Sorrell was a defective delinquent. Muskus then indicated to the court that he wanted to put Dr. Kelman's testimony 'in proper prospective' for the jury. Sorrell objected and the court sustained the objection. Muskus undertook to ask another question. The court interrupted him, stating:

'You didn't understand the ruling of the Court. We won't permit you to do that.'

Muskus replied:

'Permit what, Your Honor?

The Court: You are not to argue. The Court is not going to debate the issue here. We make the rulings and we ask that you be bound by it.'

Muskus next asked Dr. Kelman how Sorrell fit the elements of the defective delinquent definition. The court again interrupted him, stating that Dr. Kelman had already testified that Sorrell was a defective delinquent. Muskus replied:

'Yes, but I would like to have the jury clarify to them how this is applicable to Mr. Sorrell.

The Court: He's already told you that.

Mr. Muskus: Because we have it piecemeal and this is to put it in a proper perspective.

The Court: The court is going to admonish you one more time and then hold you in contempt. We ask that you proceed on in this case.'

Muskus proceeded by asking Dr. Kelman whether he was familiar with the report of Dr. McCormack concerning Sorrell; Kelman replied that he was. The court solicited an objection to the question from Sorrell's counsel which it sustained. Muskus asked Dr. Kelman whether Dr. McCormack's report changed Kelman's impression of Sorrell. Again, the court solicited an objection from defense counsel which it sustained. At a bench conference requested by Muskus, he told the court that the defense had made no objection to his question. This colloquy then followed:

'The Court: I am going to say to you for the last time. The next time we have to caution you about anything we will definitely hold you in contempt. We think you are trying the patience of this Court. If you don't know how-

'Mr. State's Attorney, the Court is going to hold you in contempt and fine you $25. If you don't know how to proceed in this case we will give you time to recess in which to gather your faculties and proceed properly. We are holding you in contempt and we are charging you a fine of $25 in this instance. Your attitude is arrogant.

Mr. Muskus: A short recess, Your Honor? Just a short recess?

The Court: We will ask you to proceed. We have already held you in contempt. And, Mr. Sheriff, he will be in your custody until he pays the fine of $25. We ask you now to proceed in this case.'

After this exchange, Muskus asked no further questions on direct examination. Following a lengthy cross-examination of Dr. Kelman, Muskus asked him, on redirect examination, a long and somewhat confused question, to which Sorrell objected. The objection was sustained and Muskus undertook to rephrase the question. The court interjected:

'Maybe you didn't hear me, Mr. State's Attorney. The objection is sustained. Do you understand the Court's ruling?'

Muskus asked no further...