People v. Tavernier

• Decision Date: 16 November 1943
• Docket Number: No. 27414.,27414.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. TAVERNIER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

384 Ill. 388

51 N.E.2d 528

PEOPLE

v.TAVERNIER.

No. 27414.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 16, 1943.

Error to Third Division, Appellate Court, First District, on Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John A. Sbarbaro, Judge.

Clifford H. Tavernier was adjudged by the criminal court to be guilty of direct contempt for refusal to answer questions during the course of a trial, and the judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court, 318 Ill.App. 622, 48 N.E.2d 551, and he brings error.

Judgments reversed.Benjamin G. Clanton and Patrick B. Prescott, Jr., both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty. (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and Joseph A. Pope, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

MURPHY, Justice.

The criminal court of Cook county adjudged plaintiff in error guilty of direct contempt and ordered that he be imprisoned in the county jail for six months and fined $1000 and that if the fine was not paid he work the same out in the house of correction at the rate of $1.50 per day. The Appellate Court affirmed the order and a writ of error has been sued out of this court for a further review.

There was but one occurrence in the trial court out of which the alleged contempt arose. On June 17, 1942, a case entitled People v. Edward L. White et al., was on trial and plaintiff in error was called as a witness. He refused to answer questions on the grounds that his answers would tend to incriminate him. On that date an order of commitment was entered and June 30 a further order was made nunc pro tunc as of June 17. The difference between the two orders was that the latter order contained a more detailed statement of facts than the former; by the second order plaintiff in error was committed to the house of correction to work out the fine at $1.50 per day, if it was not paid, while the first contained no such provision. The record shows plaintiff in error was present when the order of June 17 was entered. The nunc pro tunc order was entered when plaintiff in error was not present in court, had no notice it was to be entered and was not represented by counsel. During the interim between the entry of the two orders, other orders were entered, such as staying mittimus, fixing and approving bail and fixing time for the filing of a transcript.

The grounds for reversal are (a) that the orders do not contain facts sufficient to show a direct contempt was committed and (b) that even though the nunc pro tunc order be considered as sufficient, it is void for the reason that it was entered when plaintiff in error was not present, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right.

The pertinent parts of the order of June 17 are: ‘The Court is of the opinion that the witness, Clifford Tavernier, being a member of the bar for many years and actively engaged in the practice of law for many years, and it appearing he testified before the Cook County Grand Jury in January of 1942, and states that he was not a conspirator of the defendants in the case of People v. Edward L. White et al., Indictment No. 42-202, and it appearing to the court that the answer to the questions propounded to him would not tend to incriminate said witness, and the court having ordered and directed said witness to answer said questions, and the witness having refused to answer said questions propounded to him, and having persisted in said refusal to answer such questions, it is the order and judgment of this court that this witness, Clifford Tavernier be sentenced for direct contempt of court for his wilful and contumacious refusal to answer such questions as directed and ordered by this court to be answered. The sentence and judgment of this court is that the witness, Clifford Tavernier, be and he is hereby sentenced to the County Jail for six months and fined $1,000.’

The material parts of the finding of the order of June 30, are: ‘And thereupon the court finds that on June 17, 1942, the defendant in this cause was present in open court and while this court was in open session the court verbally ordered said defendant to answer certain questions which were propounded to him by * * * Assistant State's Attorney; that said defendant refused to answer the said questions upon the grounds that his said answers thereto might tend to incriminate him; that thereupon [the assistant State's Attorney] read in open court and in the presence and hearing of the said defendant, while said defendant was on the witness stand in a certain cause therein pending in said court, * * * entitled People of the State of Illinois vs. Edward White et al., * * * that thereupon the...