People ex rel. Andrews v. Hassakis

Decision Date23 September 1955
Docket NumberNo. 33591,33591
Citation6 Ill.2d 463,129 N.E.2d 9
PartiesThe PEOPLE ex rel. Dale ANDREWS, County Judge, Appellee, v. Demetri HASSAKIS, State's Attorney et al., Appellants.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Demetri Hassakis, State's Atty., and Milton Ecker, Asst. State's Atty., Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

MAXWELL, Justice.

The parties are county officials of Jefferson County. Defendants appeal from the following purported contempt order entered by the county judge:

'Order for Contempt'

'Now on this 28th day of February, 1955, the same being one of the judicial days of this Court, the Court on its own motion after having carefully considered the matter under consideration doth find:

I.

'That contrary to the oath each of you have taken and the duty imposed upon each of you as licensed attorneys of this State to maintain respect for and uphold the dignity of each of the Courts of this State, since I have taken office as Judge of the County and Probate Court of Jefferson County, Illinois, you have by word and deed, directly and indirectly, failed to maintain respect for and uphold the dignity of this Court.

II.

'That contrary to the oath you have taken and the duty imposed upon you as States Attorney and Assistant States Attorney of this County, since I have taken office as Judge of the County and Probate Court of Jefferson County, Illinois, you have by word and deed directly and indirectly failed to maintain respect for and uphold the dignity of this Court.

III.

'That further, you have without cause attempted by word and deed to disrupt the orderly processes of this Court and in other ways have interfered with and attempted to cause public ridicule of the decisions and orders of this Court.

'It Is Therefore Ordered that you and each of you be found to be in Contempt of Court and the privilege of appearing in this Court in any capacity is hereby suspended for a period of 30 days from this date.

'It Is Further Ordered that such suspension shall continue until such time as you and each of you shall present a satisfactory written apology to the Court.

'Dale Andrews, Judge.'

The defendants contend that this order was entered by the county judge without any notice to them, that no pleadings were filed and no hearing of any kind was had. The record verifies these contentions.

The statutes of this State require us, in deciding the cases submitted to this court, to deliver our opinions in writing, which shall be spread at large upon the records of this court. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 37, par. 21.) Absent this requirement, we would be reluctant to make a record of the ridiculous procedure involved in this matter.

Adjudging guilt and imposing punishment on anyone, by any person or by any court, without giving the accused an opportunity to defend himself is intolerable and prohibited by our constitutional guarantees. The only exception known to or tolerated by the law is the inherent right of courts to punish for acts of direct contempt as an essential incident to the maintenance of the court's authority to administer and execute its judicial powers.

The exercise of this extraordinary power is governed and restricted by definite and mandatory requirements, indispensable both to individual liberty and the preservation of the dignity and respect for the courts. Any judge who assumes to exercise this extraordinary power must know the limitations of his authority and carefully restrict himself within those limitations. Any abuse of such power is not merely an expose of the ignorance or attempt to claim dictatorial powers by that particular judge but it engenders disrespect and diffidence of all our courts and the judiciary.

The fundamental rules governing the exercise of the court's power to punish for contempt have been repeatedly stated by this court in simple and clear language and should be available, ascertainable and understandable by anyone who will read them. Punishment for indirect criminal contempt, that is for contumacious acts outside the personal knowledge of the judge, requires the observance of all the elements of due process of law, that is, notice, written charges, and an opportunity to deny and defend such charges before guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed.

Direct contempt, that is contumacious acts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Heirich, In re
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1956
    ... ... 73, 87, 54 N.E. 646, 50 L.R.A. 519; Moutray v. People (ex rel. Morris), 162 Ill. 194, 44 N.E. 496. Jurisdiction was vested in ... Andrews v. Hassakis, 6 Ill.2d 463, 468, 129 N.E.2d 9, 11. Because of the ... ...
  • Garland v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1960
    ... ... court's authority to administer and execute its judicial powers.' People ex rel. Andrews v. Hassakis, 6 Ill.2d 463, 129 N.E.2d 9, 10. In re ... ...
  • Estate of Shlensky
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 26, 1977
    ...he is charged, reasonable notice of the time and place of hearing on the charges and an evidentiary hearing. People ex rel. Andrews v. Hassakis (1955), 6 Ill.2d 463, 129 N.E.2d 9; People v. Gholson (1952), 412 Ill. 294, 106 N.E.2d 333; People v. Javaras (1972), 51 Ill.2d 296, 281 N.E.2d Res......
  • General Order of March 15, 1993, In re
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 15, 1993
    ... ... 128 ... In re GENERAL ORDER OF MARCH 15, 1993 (People, ... Petitioner-Appellee, v. Julie Hull, Respondent-Appellant) ... No ... Ill.2d 357, 362-63, 140 N.E.2d 825, 829 (emphasis added); People ex rel. Andrews[258 Ill.App.3d 19] v. Hassakis (1955), 6 Ill.2d 463, 468, 129 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT