People v. Matish
Decision Date | 05 April 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 24,24 |
Citation | 384 Mich. 568,184 N.W.2d 915 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George G. MATISH, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for appellee.
Sullivan, Sullivan, Ranger & Ward, Detroit, for appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
In the instant case, appellant Matish was defense counsel for a defendant charged with a felony crime in the Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit. On April 15, 1969, George G. Matish appeared before Hon. Frank G. Schemanske, Judge of the Recorder's Court of Detroit, on behalf of Norman Ray Thornhill. Judge Schemanske set Monday, April 21, 1969, as the date of trial for said Thornhill. The following colloquy occurred between court and counsel on April 15, 1969:
'And in view of the activity of this defendant--and all of these activities have been just in that kind of a situation--and therefore the Presiding Judge asked me to set it for trial.
On April 21, 1969, an associate of Mr. Matish, Myzell Sowell, appeared before Judge Schemanske, and at that time the following colloquy took place between the court and Mr. Sowell:
'Now if this case does not go to trial, I will sentence Mr. Matish for contempt of court.
The matter did not proceed to trial on April 21, 1969, but, in fact, was adjourned for one day after a lengthy dialogue between the court and Norman Ray Thornhill, wherein defendant Thornhill raised the issue, among others, that he wanted the matter remanded so that he might have a preliminary examination which had theretofore been waived.
On April 22, 1969, the defendant, Norman Ray Thornhill, did plead guilty to the offense of attempted possession of burglar tools, and his plea was accepted by the court.
On Monday, April 28, 1969, George G. Matish appeared before Judge Frank G. Schemanske and was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, presumably for not being personally present on April 21. He was sentenced to a $50 fine, or 10 days in the county jail. On January 29, 1970, Division 1 of the Court of Appeals, by Per Curiam opinion, sustained the trial judge.*
It is fundamental that courts of record, as part of their judicial power, may punish persons for contemptuous disobedience to the court. (M.C.L.A. §§ 600.1701, 600.1711 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. §§ 27A.1701, 27A.1711)).
The crux of the issue here is whether appellant Matish failed to comply with the order of the court to assure the presence of counsel on the designated trial date in order that defendant Thornhill be tried on the charges pending against him.
The power to punish for contempt is awesome and carries with it the equally great responsibility to apply it judiciously and only when the contempt is clearly and unequivocally shown. Arthur v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965), 62 Cal.2d 404, p. 411, 42 Cal.Rptr. 441, p. 446, 398 P.2d 777, p. 782, describes very succinctly the necessity for such authority:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Gorcyca
...then, judges must be prudent in their use of this power, and they must be held responsible accordingly. See People v. Matish, 384 Mich. 568, 572, 184 N.W.2d 915 (1971) ("The power to punish for contempt is awesome and carries with it the equally great responsibility to apply it judiciously ......
-
Thurston, In re
...594 (1971), while correlatively demanding clear and unequivocal proof that such boundaries have been exceeded, People v. Matish, 384 Mich. 568, 572, 184 N.W.2d 915 (1971), the statement was neither inaccurate nor misleading. 13 The theory advanced is that, extemporizing in response to a que......
-
State ex rel. Walker v. Giardina
...70 Cal.2d 143, 74 Cal.Rptr. 285, 449 P.2d 221 (1969); Young v. Knight, 329 S.W.2d 195, 77 A.L.R.2d 994 (Ky.1959); People v. Matish, 384 Mich. 568, 184 N.W.2d 915 (1971); State v. American-News Co., 62 S.D. 456, 253 N.W. 492 (1934); 17 C.J.S. Contempt § 44 (1963).4 In the deposition taken on......
-
People v. Kurz
...great responsibility to apply it judiciously and Only when the contempt is clearly and unequivocally shown.' People v. Matish (1971), 384 Mich. 568, 572, 184 N.W.2d 915, 916. (Emphasis In People v. Ravitz (1970), 26 Mich.App. 263, 269, 182 N.W.2d 75, 78, we said that in reviewing a contempt......