Rucker v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1908
• Docket Number: No. 21,165.,21,165.
• Citation: 170 Ind. 635,85 N.E. 356
• Parties: RUCKER v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

170 Ind. 635

85 N.E. 356

RUCKER

v.STATE.

No. 21,165.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 30, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elkhart County; Jas. S. Dodge, Judge.

Edmund P. Rucker was fined for contempt of court, and appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss the rule to show cause.Perry L. Turner, for appellant. Jas. A. Bingham, Alex. G. Cavins, Ed. M. White, and Henry M. Dowling, for the State.

HADLEY, J.

The prosecuting attorney, on October 17, 1907, filed against appellant a verified information and caused a rule or order of court to issue commanding the latter to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. The information set forth:

“That on Monday, October 14, 1907, the prosecuting attorney of the Thirty-Fourth judicial circuit of Indiana, William H. Duff, was present in person in the said court and advised the court that he was too sick to take charge of the duties of his office at said term of said court, whereupon the court, with the advice of the said prosecuting attorney, appointed James L. Harman, a member of the bar of the Elkhart circuit court, to assist the prosecution in matters to come before the grand jury about to be impaneled in said court. That the said James L. Harman then in open court accepted said appointment and was duly qualified and sworn. That immediately the regularly drawn and duly qualified grand jury were sworn and instructed by the court and immediately retired to enter upon the discharge of its duties. That the said grand jury were in session on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of October, and remained in session up to and including the date of the filing of this information. That the above and foregoing facts were each and all known to the said Edmund P. Rucker on the 14th and 15th days of October, 1907, in so far as said facts existed at said last-named date. That on the 15th day of October, 1907, the said Edmund P. Rucker published and caused to be published in the Elkhart Truth, a daily newspaper of general circulation published at the city of Elkhart, a certain article, which article is in the words and figures following, to wit:

“‘Lawyers of Elkhart are Very Wroth.

“‘Judge Dodge's Charge to the Grand Jury

Yesterday has Stirred up a Hornet's Nest.

“‘Calls Forth Criticism.

“‘Appointment of Mr. Harman as Prosecutor During Police Investigation is Termed an Absurdity.

“‘Say Judge Exceeded Authority.

“‘Judge Dodge threw a bomb shell in among the Elkhart lawyers yesterday by his instructions to the grand jury, with reference to the Elkhart temperance workers bringing in hired detectives to ferret out evidence of law violations. Members of the bar today stated that this is a direct slap at the superior court since the trials of the liquor cases were in the Elkhart tribunal and there is a disposition to resent bitterly the action of the circuit court judge. Attorneys for the Civic League say they have nothing to fear from an investigation such as Judge Dodge has mapped out. They are disposed to censure the court for what they term an inappropriate, ungracious and uncalled for disposition to throw cold water on their efforts. While none of the Elkhart lawyers would permit his name to be used, all discussed very freely the grand jury instructions of Judge Dodge and there was a unanimity of adverse opinion.

“‘Suppose Judge Van Fleet did Same.

““‘The best illustration I can give to show how inappropriate it is for Judge Dodge to ‘dip in’ to the affairs of the superior court,'' said one lawyer, “is to suppose that Judge Van Fleet were to assume a similar attitude with reference to the circuit court, call a grand jury to inquire into the conduct of certain cases tried in the circuit court and haul over here a lot of Goshen ministers or other citizens to be subjected to scrutiny. The courts are of co-ordinate jurisdiction and it would be just as absurd for Judge Van Fleet to do it as for Judge Dodge.” Another lawyer thought Judge Dodge had exceeded his authority in removing the deputy prosecutors, that they were state officers elected by the same franchises that elected Judge Dodge, and therefore to be removed only by death, resignation, or impeachment.

“‘Police Board Member as Prosecutor.

““‘Does it not strike you as incongruous,’' continued this attorney, “that the court should give instructions for an investigation of the police department of Goshen and Elkhart and then appoint a man prosecuting attorney who is a member of the Elkhart police board?” “It certainly is a strange proposition to me,” said another lawyer. “It looks as if Judge Dodge is determined to try to embarrass the superior court.” Judge Dodge's instructions yesterday were very comprehensive and explicit as to the investigation of superior court matters.'

“That the contents of the said article so published, and the statements therein contained, and the publication thereof are in contempt of the Elkhart circuit court.

“Wherefore your relator says that the said Edmund P. Rucker should be cited to appear in the said court, and show cause, if any there be, why he should not be punished for contempt.”

The rule, embodying a copy of the information, having been served upon appellant, he appeared and moved the court to discharge the rule against him, which motion was overruled and an exception reserved. The defendant then filed a verified answer in three paragraphs, all of which become immaterial, since, under the view we have taken of the case, the only question necessary to be considered and decided is the sufficiency of the information to warrant the issuance of the writ against appellant. The case was considered on the verified pleadings, without other evidence, the defendant found guilty, and fined in the sum of $100, from which judgment he appeals.

As in all other legal proceedings, the judgment cannot be sustained if the information upon which it rests fails to exhibit a state of facts that will authorize the court to pronounce it. To enable courts to preserve their proper dignity and efficiency, and to ward off such scurrilous attacks and such interferences with their business, as will...