People v. Siegal
| Decision Date | 20 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 30400.,30400. |
| Citation | 79 N.E.2d 616,400 Ill. 208 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SIEGAL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John A. Sbarbaro, Judge.
Frank Siegal was sentenced by the Criminal Court of Cook County to ten days in County jail for alleged direct criminal contempt, and he brings error.
Cause transferred to Appellate Court of First District.William Scott Stewart, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and William J. Tuohy, State's Atty., of Chicago (John T. Gallagher and Melvin S. Rembe, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Frank Siegal, has sued out this writ of error to review a judgment of the criminal court of Cook County, which sentenced him to ten days in the county jail for an alleged direct criminal contempt of that court. Plaintiff in error claims the summary procedure adopted by the trial court violated the due-process clauses of the State and Federal constitutions.
Section 14 of division XV of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 38, par. 780 1/2) provides that a writ of error in all criminal cases below the grade of felony shall be sued out of the appropriate Appellate Court. A criminal contempt of court is a crime against the court and against the people and is a misdemeanor. Rawson v. Rawson, 35 Ill.App. 505. Therefore a writ of error in a contempt proceeding is properly sued out of the Appellate Court unless there is fairly involved a debatable constitutional question which was passed upon by the trial court and the issue properly preserved for review, in which case the writ may be sued out of this court. People v. Humphreys, 353 Ill. 340, 187 N.E. 446;People v. Brickey, 396 Ill. 140, 71 N.E.2d 157;People v. Seymour, 272 Ill. 295, 111 N.E. 1008.
In the instant case plaintiff in error claims, as the foundation for direct appeal, the violation of the due-process clauses of the State and Federal constitutions. He contends that due process was denied him in the summary proceeding which sentenced him to jail for ten days for an alleged contempt of the criminal court of Cook County for making false statements with intent to impede justice while a witness for the People in the case of People v. William Vogel et al. He challenges the right of the criminal court to use the summary contempt proceeding to punish perjury. He further contends that, assuming the contempt proceeding is proper against a perjurer, that its arbitrary use or abuse by the court violates the constitutional guaranties of due process of law. We shall, therefore, direct our attention to the procedural question to determine if this court is the proper court for the relief which plaintiff in error seeks.
For this court to review a misdemeanor by writ of error, a constitutional question must have been formed in the issues before the trial court, passed upon, and be preserved in the bill of exceptions for review in this court. People v. Brickey, 396 Ill. 140, 71 N.E.2d 157. Plaintiff in error recites in the bill of exceptions, which was later made a part of the record and certified, as follows: ‘The defendant objected and contended that he was being deprived of due process of law as guaranteed by the constitution and the laws of Illinois and the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, which contentions were overruled and the defendant duly excepted to the ruling of the court and the entry of the order.’ He thereby preserved for review the constitutional question if it, in fact, exists.
The first allegation of violation of due process is that the court was without power to summarily punish a witness for contempt for perjury committed in the presence of the court in the course of an official proceeding, which perjury was determined by the court to have been willfully designed to impede the administration of justice. The order and finding of the court does not name the offense perjury, but as pointed out above, a willful false representation of matters material to the matter under investigation with intent to impede the administration of justice.
In People v. Seymour, 272 Ill. 295, at page 301, 111 N.E. 1008, we stated that the court has the power to punish for contempt without any statutory provision and that this power has been recognized from the very beginning of judicial administration in this State and has been constantly repeated. To the same effect is Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 9 S.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405, and People v. Sheridan, 349 Ill. 202, 181 N.E. 617. Deciding whether the order adjudging defendant in contempt was based on technical perjury or upon false statements made with intent to impede justice, does not raise a constitutional question.
The second issue is whether a summary proceeding for direct contempt, properly used within the discretion of the court, violates the constitutional guaranty of due process. Both the United States Supreme Court and this court have recognized the constitutionality of contempt proceedings. Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 9 S.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405;People v. Seymour, 272 Ill. 295, 111 N.E. 1008. Plaintiff in error claims that since no pleadings were used, no hearings held nor interrogatories issued, he was not afforded his constitutional guaranties of due process. The proceeding for direct contempt is summary in nature and requires no pleadings. The contumacious acts are committed in the presence of the court and his findings of fact are based upon matters of which he may take judicial notice. No rule, citation or other order is necessary. Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 9 S.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405.
In the case at bar plaintiff in error was a witness for the People in the prosecution of William Vogel and others. At the conclusion of the evidence for the People and of the testimony of Vogel, a verdict of not guilty was directed for the defendants. The trial court then entered a rule against the plaintiff in error to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, and gave him one week in which he might present an answer or explanation, which plaintiff in error failed to do. He asked for neither continuance nor hearing, but appeared at the later hearing in person and by counsel. His only objection was to the order finding him guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Randall
... ... The question at trial was not one of facts "before the judge," but, rather, facts known to the judge, e. g., his personal and judicial experience. See People v. Siegal (1948), 400 Ill. 208, 79 N.E.2d 616; In re Estate of Shlensky (1977), 49 Ill.App.3d 885, 7 Ill.Dec. 269, 364 N.E.2d 430 ... Further, the, "author of the forgery" is irrelevant to this appeal. Defendant was using the letter as evidence to excuse his absence from the court. He ... ...
-
Marriage of Betts, In re
...N.E.2d 723, 726.) Summary proceedings in these cases do not impair any of a contemnor's constitutional rights. People v. Siegal (1948), 400 Ill. 208, 211-12, 79 N.E.2d 616, 618; Clark, 4 Ill.App.3d at 305, 280 N.E.2d at B. Procedural Rights of Persons Charged with Direct Civil Contempt Dire......
-
People v. Javaras
... ... (People ... v. Loughran (1954), 2 Ill.2d 258, 118 N.E.2d 310; People v. Siegal (1948), 400 Ill. 208, 79 N.E.2d 616.) The case before us raises the question of the procedural requisites for such punishment ... The procedural requirements for judicial punishment for criminal contempt of court depend upon whether the contempt is 'direct' or 'indirect.' ... ...
-
Estate of Shlensky
...prior notice, written charges, plea, issue or trial. (In re Terry (1888), 128 U.S. 289, 9 S.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405; People v. Siegal (1948), 400 Ill. 208, 79 N.E.2d 616; People v. Javaras (1972), 51 Ill.2d 296, 281 N.E.2d 670.) Further presentation of evidence is unnecessary and no record nee......