State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court of Perry County
Decision Date | 16 July 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 85-1044,85-1044 |
Citation | 495 N.E.2d 16,25 Ohio St.3d 53,25 OBR 77 |
Parties | , 25 O.B.R. 77 The STATE, ex rel. JOHNSON, v. COUNTY COURT OF PERRY COUNTY. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Johnson thereupon instituted this action in prohibition. He contends that the county court has no inherent authority to punish him for contempt, nor may it proceed against him under the terms of R.C. 2705.02.
The cause is now before this court for disposition on its merits.
Kincaid, Cultice & Geyer, Catherine A. Cunningham and Peter N. Cultice, Zanesville, for relator.
Leech, Freeman, Scherbel, Hostetler & Peddicord and Fleet Freeman, Coshocton, for respondent.
The initial question we consider is whether county courts have jurisdiction through inherent power or under R.C. 2705.02 to punish contempts. For reasons to follow, we hold that they do not have such jurisdiction.
County courts were created by an Act of the General Assembly. R.C. 1907.011. They are therefore unlike this court, the courts of appeals and the courts of common pleas, all of which originate in the Ohio Constitution. Section 1, Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
"A court created by the constitution has inherent power to define and punish contempts, such power being necessary to the exercise of judicial functions." State, ex rel. Turner, v. Albin (1928), 118 Ohio St. 527, 161 N.E.2d 792, paragraph one of the syllabus. "The general assembly is without authority to abridge the power of a court created by the constitution to punish contempts * * *, such power being inherent and necessary to the exercise of judicial functions * * *." Hale v. State (1896), 55 Ohio St. 210, 45 N.E. 199, paragraph one of the syllabus. Statutory powers to deal with contempts are merely cumulative and in addition to the inherent authority of the court. Univis Lens Co. v. United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America (1949), 86 Ohio App. 241, 245, 89 L.Ed.2d 658 . However, where a procedure has been prescribed for the exercise of the power to punish contempts by rule or by statute, it is the duty of the court to follow such procedure. See In Matter of Lands (1946), 146 Ohio St. 589, 595, 67 N.E.2d 433 . A court created by statute, however, has only limited jurisdiction, and may exercise only such powers as are directly conferred by legislative action. Oakwood v. Wuliger (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 453, 454, 432 N.E.2d 809 . County courts, therefore, as presently constituted in Ohio, have no inherent authority to punish contempts.
Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 55, 271 N.E.2d 815 , paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.
Generally, contempt of court actions are not susceptible to neat categorization. Cincinnati v. Cincinnati District Council 51 (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 197, 201-202, 299 N.E.2d 686 . Nevertheless, there has been some effort to classify and define contempt actions. Our previous cases indicate that some are civil and some are criminal. State v. Local Union 5760 (1961), 172 Ohio St. 75, 82-83, 173 N.E.2d 331 . More recently, this court made similar observations. With respect to civil contempt, we said, Brown v. Executive 200, Inc. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 250, 253-254, 416 N.E.2d 610 .
Under the facts of this case, Johnson became the subject of a contempt action to punish him for not personally attending a hearing in the county court. This contempt action clearly is not for the benefit of an opposing party. It is punitive in character and, as such, is a criminal action. "The standard of proof required in a criminal contempt proceeding is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., supra, at syllabus. "Because contempt proceedings affect personal liberty, the proceedings and the statutes governing them must be strictly construed." In re Contempt of Court (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 182, 187, 283 N.E.2d 126 ; State v. Local Union 5760, supra, 172 Ohio St. at 83, 172 N.E.2d 331.
Which statutes control the underlying action herein? The relator, Johnson, essentially argues that a county court is limited exclusively in its contempt power to that conferred by R.C. 1907.171:
Respondent conversely asserts that R.C. 2705.02 gives it authority to proceed against Johnson. That section reads:
Specifically, respondent claims that R.C. 2705.02 confers power on county courts to punish contempts by reason of R.C. 1907.371:
"Chapters 2301. to 2335., inclusive, and 2703., 2705., 2713., and 2737. of the Revised Code, in their nature applicable to proceedings in a county court, and in respect of which no special provision is made in Chapters 1907. to 1923., inclusive, of the Revised Code, apply to such proceedings."
Respondent misapprehends the meaning of this statute. In effect, R.C. 1907.371 states that the provisions of R.C. Chapter 2705, inter alia, apply to county courts except where a "special provision is made in Chapters 1907. and 1923." of the Revised Code. Since contempt powers are conferred upon county court judges by R.C. 1907.171, they have no authority to discharge contempts under R.C. 2705.02. Moreover, R.C. 1907.171 is a special provision relating particularly to the jurisdiction of county courts, whereas R.C. 2705.02 is a common provision relating to Ohio courts generally. "Where there is no manifest legislative intent that a general provision of the Revised Code prevail over a special provision, the special provision takes precedence." State v. Frost (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 121, 387 N.E.2d 235 , paragraph one of the syllabus; Cincinnati v. Thomas Soft Ice Cream (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 76, 369 N.E.2d 778 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State, ex rel. Myers, v. Chiaramonte (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 230, 348 N.E.2d 323 , paragraph one of the syllabus. Stated another way, "[a] special statutory provision which relates to the specific subject matter involved in litigation is controlling over a general statutory provision which might otherwise be applicable." Andrianos v. Community Traction Co. (1951), 155 Ohio St. 47, 97 N.E.2d 549 , paragraph one of the syllabus.
We consequently conclude that R.C. 1907.171 is the exclusive authority by which county courts may punish contempts and county courts have no power to proceed against a contemnor under R.C. 2705.02.
Although the summons and complaint in the underlying action accuse Johnson of contempt under R.C. 2705.02, respondent avers that Johnson's conduct comes within the sphere of R.C. 1907.171(A), and that prohibition should not issue for that reason. This argument is meritless.
In addition to the categorization of contempts as civil or criminal, they may be divided into two further classes--direct and indirect. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Contemnor Caron
... ... Nos. 92DR-04-DP-04-427 ... Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, ... , the father filed numerous tangent state and federal lawsuits against a multitude of ... of the law which is challenged." Johnson v. Grant (Scotland 1923), S.C. 789, at 790, ... R.C. 1907.18(B), superseding Johnson v. Perry Cty. Court (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 53, 25 OBR 77, ... State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police v. Dayton (1977), 49 ... ...
-
City of Cleveland v. Bright
... ... BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 108989 Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga ... Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. Martin, Assistant ... See State v. Hudson , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 10 MA 157, ... People, ex rel. , 216 Ill. 354, 368, 75 N.E. 108 (1905). "The ... 2705.05 are not mandatory. In Johnson v. Johnson , 2d Dist. Greene, 2020-Ohio-1644, ... Johnson v. Cty. Court of Perry Cty. , 25 Ohio St.3d 53, 54, 25 Ohio B. 77, 495 ... ...
-
Roberts v. County of Mahoning, No. 4:03 CV 2329.
... ... No. 4:03 CV 2329 ... United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division ... May 25, 2006 ... APPENDIX 1 ... STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY ... IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ... State of OHIO, ex rel. Randall A. WELLINGTON, Mahoning County Sheriff, Relator ... 458, 40 O.O. 482, 90 N.E.2d 139." Johnson's Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Dept. of Health (1991), 58 ... See State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court of Perry" County (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 53, 54, 495 N.E.2d 16 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State ex rel. Yates v. Court of Appeals for Montgomery County
... ... State, ex rel. Johnson, v. Perry County Court (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 53, 58, 25 OBR 77, 81, 495 N.E.2d 16, 21; State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 326, ... ...