Reeves v. Moreland
| Decision Date | 16 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 39911,39911 |
| Citation | 577 S.W.2d 125 |
| Parties | 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2423 Leon REEVES and Martha Carter, Petitioners, v. Edward MORELAND, Acting Director Department of Welfare, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Francis L. Ruppert, Ruppert & Schlueter, Clayton, Bernard Edelman, Jerry J. Murphy, Joseph A. Fenlow, Jr., St. Louis, for petitioners.
Byron A. Roche, Special Prosecutor, Bridgeton, amicus curiae.
Burton Halpern, Bridgeton, Thomas W. Wehrle, St. Louis County Counselor, Andrew J. Minardi, Associate County Counselor, Clayton, for respondent.
In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioners Leon Reeves and Martha Carter contest their convictions for indirect criminal contempt. St. Louis County Circuit Judge Robert Lee Campbell found petitioners willfully and deliberately violated a valid restraining order issued by him on June 6, 1977. 1 Both petitioners were sentenced to twenty days imprisonment in the custody of the St. Louis County Department of Welfare.
The conduct for which petitioners were found to be in violation of the restraining order occurred in connection with a strike by members of the United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 13889, against Hussmann Refrigerator Co., Inc. Petitioners were Hussmann employees and members of Local 13889; Reeves was the elected Recording Secretary of the Local and Carter a rank-and-file member.
On the morning of August 1, 1977, 300 to 400 striking Hussmann Refrigerator employees gathered within 100 yards of Hussmann's chain-link fence in a demonstration against the company. Police officers from St. Louis County, Bridgeton and surrounding municipalities were called to the scene. The temporary restraining order and warnings that the demonstrators violating it would be arrested were read two or more times over a bullhorn or loud-speaker to the assembled crowd. Finally, an order to arrest the demonstrators was issued. Petitioners were among the approximately 100 persons arrested. 2
Petitioner Reeves argues the evidence presented failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of criminal contempt. Petitioner Carter makes no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction, but argues she was denied a fair and impartial trial in violation of her due process rights because Judge Campbell had personal knowledge, prior to the presentation of evidence, that she had actual knowledge of the restraining order.
The contempt convictions are affirmed, the writs of habeas corpus previously issued are quashed and the petitioners remanded to the custody of respondent.
Is there substantial evidence to support the finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Leon Reeves violated the restraining order?
Judge Campbell found Reeves had violated the temporary restraining order by:
1. picketing the property at a time when two other persons were picketing at an entrance to the Hussmann property;
2. blocking egress and ingress by his presence in the crowd of 300 to 400 persons;
3. seeking to coerce or intimidate Hussmann employees from entering or leaving the plant by shouting, "Go home scabs";
4. assembling in a crowd of 300 to 400 people within 100 yards of Hussmann's chain-link fence; and
5. blocking egress and ingress by instructing pickets to keep walking and slow traffic.
Before discussing the evidence and the charges against Reeves, some of the principles applicable to appellate review of habeas corpus and criminal contempt proceedings should be set out.
First, the elements of criminal contempt that must be proved are actual knowledge of the restraining order and willful conduct in violation of its terms. Ramsey v. Grayland, 567 S.W.2d 682, 686 (Mo.App.1978); Chemical Fireproofing Corp. v. Bronska, 553 S.W.2d 710 (Mo.App.1977). Although a criminal contempt proceeding is sui generis (Osborne v. Purdome, 244 S.W.2d 1005 (Mo. banc 1951) cert. denied, 343 U.S. 953, 72 S.Ct. 1046, 96 L.Ed. 1354 (1952)), the state has the burden of proving the elements of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ramsey, supra, 686.
Second:
In a habeas corpus proceeding involving a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the record de novo, but must determine whether the trial court's findings are supported by the evidence. Ex parte Neal, 507 S.W.2d 674 (Mo.App.1974); Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App.1970). In making this determination, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the court's judgment, giving consideration to all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the evidence. All facts and inferences to the contrary are to be disregarded. State v. Franco, 544 S.W.2d 533 (Mo. banc 1976). It is not our function to weigh the evidence where it is in conflict or to resolve issues of credibility; rather, we look to see whether there was substantial evidentiary support for the court's findings. State ex rel. Girard v. Percich, supra (557 S.W.2d 25 (Mo.App.1977)). Criminal contempt may be proved by circumstantial evidence so long as the facts are consistent with one another and with the hypothesis of guilt, and are inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, supra; Ex Parte Miles, 406 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.App.1966).
Petitioner Reeves, as Recording Secretary of Local 13889, was named as a defendant in the restraining order issued by Judge Campbell. As Reeves concedes in his brief, "there is no question (but) that he had actual knowledge of the existence of the temporary restraining order." Therefore, we proceed to the second element of criminal contempt willful conduct in violation of the restraining order.
From midnight until 8:00 a. m. on August 1, 1977, Reeves served as one of three union "picket captains." Their duties included keeping picket attendance records, being present for picket shift changes, visiting pickets on the picket line at the Hussmann gates and bringing them refreshments. Although pickets served four hour shifts, Reeves and the other picket captains normally served eight hour shifts.
About 6:30 a. m. on August 1, Reeves received a call at union strike headquarters informing him that demonstrators were assembling across the street from the Hussmann plant. (Reeves denied having any prior knowledge that a demonstration had been planned.) In response to the call he drove to the Hussmann plant but could not reach it because traffic had been stopped by the demonstration. He parked his car on the south side of St. Charles Rock Road, approximately 500 feet from the intersection of Taussig Road and St. Charles Rock Road, and walked toward Hussmann Gate No. 1, the scene of the demonstration. When he tried to cross over Taussig Road to Gate No. 1, he was stopped by police officers and told to stay on the west side of Taussig. He did so, and was arrested shortly thereafter while he was standing directly across from Gate No. 1 in the main body of demonstrators. The evidence presented at trial clearly established that Reeves: (1) picketed the property at a time when two other persons were picketing; (2) blocked egress and ingress by his presence in the crowd; and (3) assembled in a crowd of 300 to 400 demonstrators within 100 yards of Hussmann's chain-link fence.
It is unnecessary to consider all of the specifications found as to Reeves. Since the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to test the legality of the restraint, " '(i)t follows that if the determination . . . is supported as to even one of the several specifications contained in the judgment . . . then that petitioner is not illegally restrained . . . .' " Ramsey, supra, 687, quoting Curtis v. Tozer, 374 S.W.2d 557, 581 (Mo.App.1964). Substantial evidence supported the finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Reeves violated the restraining order as stated in specifications (1), (2) and (4) of the judgment.
The real issue, however, is whether Reeves possessed the criminal intent necessary to support a conviction on these specifications. This court has recognized in other contempt cases that the element of criminal intent "is traditionally the most difficult to establish" (State ex rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25, 36 (Mo.App.1977)) and may amount to "a nearly impossible burden on the prosecution." Ramsey, supra, 691. Because "(d) irect evidence of criminal intent is rarely obtainable" it must more frequently "be inferred from the evidence of defendants' conduct." Ramsey, supra, 691.
Further complicating the issue, as the court recognized in Chemical Fireproofing Corp., supra, 717(15), "It is not clear whether the intent required is the intent to do the specific act which is prohibited by the court or the intent to defy the court." The court there finally decided "the requisite intent for a criminal conviction is somewhere in between an intent to do the prohibited act not only with the knowledge that it will harm the other party but also with a careless and imprudent disregard for the power and authority of the court which buttresses the prohibition."
Reeves had actual knowledge of the temporary restraining order when he joined the crowd of strikers on the west side of Taussig Road within 100 yards of Hussmann's chain-link fence. Although he was a union officer, Reeves did nothing to persuade the crowd to disperse and comply with the court order. Instead, and in spite of warnings by the police to the demonstrators to disperse or face arrest, Reeves remained in the crowd, blocked egress and ingress and picketed while two lawful pickets were present. Reeves would have this court view his action in a vacuum, without regard to the events of the morning of August 1, and the actions of the other demonstrators. The trial court could reasonably infer from Reeves' conduct and the attending circumstances that Reeves engaged in contemptuous activity in knowing and willful violation of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hutson v. McHaney
...observed " '(t)he right to a change of venue, including objections to the judge, is a statutory privilege ...' ". Reeves v. Moreland, 577 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Mo.App.1979). Also see State v. Perkins, 339 Mo. 27, 95 S.W.2d 75 (banc 1936). It is true that §§ 545.660 and 545.670 have been construe......