State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray

Citation108 N.E.2d 251,231 Ind. 223
Decision Date21 October 1952
Docket Number28943,Nos. 28909,s. 28909
PartiesSTATE ex rel. STANTON, Pros. Atty., v. MURRAY, Judge, et al. STANTON v. STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

David P. Stanton, Gary, pro se.

Henry R. Sackett, Gary, for respondents.

J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, William T. McClain, Deputy Atty. Gen., John Ready O'Connor, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee, State of Indiana.

BOBBITT, Judge.

Relator and appellant herein, David P. Stanton, is the prosecuting attorney of Lake County, Indiana, and will hereafter be referred to as appellant.

Respondent herein, William J. Murray, is judge of the Lake Criminal Court and, for convenience, will hereafter be referred to as appellee when discussing both the original action and appeal.

Both are, and were, during the time of the alleged acts herein, candidates for reelection to their respective offices.

The original action, cause numbered 28,909, and appeal, cause numbered 28,943, are concerned with the same subject matter and involve the same records of the trial court. They are so closely related that we may consolidate and dispose of them in one opinion.

It should be said in the outset that we have had no help in the appeal from the alleged brief filed in behalf of the appellee, State of Indiana.

On April 4, 1952 appellant, as prosecuting attorney, and in the performance of his duty as such, appeared in the Lake Criminal Court for the purpose of arguing a motion to quash in a certain criminal case pending in said court. At the opening of court on that day when the prosecuting attorney appeared, the court announced that it had come to his attention that 'some days' prior to April 4, 1952, appellant was quoted extensively in a newspaper published in Lake County to the effect that he, as prosecuting attorney of Lake County, had not had cooperation from the judge of the criminal court, 'that a climate of hostility existed in the court, that obstructionist tactics were confronting him, that his efforts to do his job in this court had been met with sneers, ridicule, scorn, abuse, and personal vilification, and that the attitude of the judge of this court [Lake Criminal Court] toward law enforcement was intolerable, and that this judge's system of having mutual back-scratching pro-tem substitution of lawyers as judge pro-tem in this court all constitute roadblocks to effective law enforcement and that the conduct of this court [Lake Criminal Court] indicates that a person was right who had demanded, 'let's kick the rascals out."

The judge (appellee) then asked appellant if he was responsible for said article which had appeared in The Hammond Times on March 25, 1952, to which the appellant replied that he did not intend to stand and be interrogated on matters other than business pertaining to the prosecuting attorney, and that he would not answer any other questions than those pertaining to the business then before the court. Appellee then replied, 'You have a constitutional right to answer or not' to which appellant replied, 'I do not want to answer.' Appellee then said, 'At this point, because I don't know if I should bar you from this Court room or whether I should cite you for contempt or whether I should be like the Irishman who was kicked by a mule and consider where it came from. I intended to do this yesterday but we were held up by a jury trial and before I hear any more cases or before I let you practice in this Court, I am going to dicide what I am going to do about this article in the paper. I think, as an officer of this Court, you owe this Court an apology.' After some further exchange of remarks between the appellee and appellant, and after the judge had told appellant that he had a right to leave the courtroom, he then said: 'I [appellee] am not going to try anything before you [appellant] until you apologize to this court.'

On April 7, 1952 appellant filed in this court his verified petition for writ of mandate and prohibition alleging therein that he, as prosecuting attorney, was present, ready, willing and able to present the argument which had been set on April 4, 1952 on said motion to quash, and that appellee arbitrarily refused to proceed in said matter or to permit appellant to attend the hearing or to participate therein, and further alleging that appellee refused to allow appellant to represent the State of Indiana in any matters pending in the Lake Criminal Court until such time as the appellant apologized to appellee for the statements allegedly made by appellant and published in The Hammond Times concerning appellee as an individual and as a candidate for re-election to the office of Judge of the Lake Criminal Court, and therein praying that an alternative writ issue directing appellee to set the cause of State of Indiana v. William Vinovich for hearing on said motion to quash and permit and allow the appellant to appear at said hearing and represent the State of Indiana therein.

On this petition we issued an alternative writ on April 9, 1952 commanding appellee, William J. Murray, as Judge of the Lake Criminal Court, to allow and permit appellant to appear as Prosecuting Attorney and participate in all criminal matters pending in the Lake Criminal Court.

On April 19th appellee filed his return which was verified on April 17, 1952. Among other things appellee states in said return that 'Relator [appellant] may participate in the Vinovich or any other case where defendant sits as judge so long as relator well demeans himself.

'The Vinovich case may be set at any time that the calendar of the court will permit on request of either party to that proceeding.

'With respect to the alternative writ and its command the defendant states that he presently is and will continue to be willing to permit participation by relator as prosecutor in any matters pending before defendant as judge in the Criminal Court of Lake County, Indiana, so long only as relator properly conducts himself in the court.'

Appellee further states in his return that he is making no demand on appellant to apologize to him for anything and recognizes that appellant may appear as prosecuting attorney in the Criminal Court of Lake County 'so long as he remains such prosecutor and well conducts himself.' Appellee further states that appellant is not suspended from practicing in said court, and no attempt will be made to prevent his full participation in any matter pending therein.

On April 17, 1952, the same day on which appellee's return was verified, appellant appeared before appellee in the Lake Criminal Court and argued a motion to dismiss in a criminal action there pending. At the completion of the arguments appellant was stopped by appellee as he was attempting to leave the courtroom and the following proceedings were had:

'In the Matter of David P. Stanton

No. 26387

'There had been set for argument in this Court on April 4, 1952 the motion to quash of the defendant, in the pending case of State of Indiana v. Vinovich as Cause No. 26007 herein.

'At the convening of the court on that day and the calling of said cause for such argument, David P. Stanton as the Prosecuting Attorney of this Judicial Circuit, appeared and the defendant and his counsel were present.

'It had come to the attention of the court that Mr. Stanton some days prior to April 4, 1952, was extensively quoted in the press in Lake County, Indiana, to the effect that as Prosecutor he had not had cooperation from the judge of this court, that a climate of hostility existed in the court, that obstructionist tactics here confronted him, that his efforts to do his job in this court had been met with sneers, ridicule, scorn, abuse, personal vilification, and that the attitude of the judge of this court toward law enforcement was intolerable and that the judge's system of having mutual back-scratching pro-tem substitution of lawyers as judge pro-tem in this court all constitute roadblocks to effective law enforcement and that the conduct of this court indicates that a person was right who had demanded 'let's kick the rascals out.'

'In view of that purported statement and the attitude of Stanton it purportedly reflected, this court felt and believed that it was proper before proceeding further with said Vinovich case to ascertain whether Stanton had or had not made such statements and and what his attitude was as to the ability of the State of Indiana in the Vinovich case to secure fair and impartial consideration by the regular presiding judge of this court, and if Stanton said that he had make those statements or that they reflected his views and belief, the regular judge of this court intended, even if Stanton did not ask for a change of judge, to challenge himself in the cause.

'Accordingly, in open court, at the calling of the Vinovich case the court inquired of Mr. Stanton whether he was responsible for the remarks that appeared in the news article in The Hammond Times, on March 25, 1952, with reference to this court as above stated, whereupon Mr. Stanton replied, 'I am not here for any other business other than as prosecuting attorney to take up the business before this court', and when the court repeated its question to Stanton, he then stated 'I will repeat to the court I do not intend to stand here and be interrogated other than the business pertaining to the prosecuting attorney. I will not answer any other questions other than the busines-- before the court. I do not want to answer.' The court then stated, 'The court has a right to interrogate you', to which Stanton replied, 'Not at this point.' Said statements of Stanton were made in open court while the court was open for the transaction of business and engaged therein. They were stated in a rude, insolent and disrespectful manner. They interfered with and impeded the operation of the court, and if Stanton made the statements attributed to him in the press, they also interfered with and impeded the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Skolnick v. State, PS
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 25 Abril 1979
    ... ... See, e. g., State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray (1952), 231 Ind. 223, 108 N.E.2d 251 (statement reciting conclusion that ... ...
  • Jacobsen v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 15 Enero 1979
    ... ... State ex rel. Keesling v. Grant Cir. Ct. et al. (1958), 238 Ind. 577, 153 N.E.2d 912; Smith et al. v. St. Bd ... The court order was more specific than the broad order found in State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray; Stanton v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 223, 108 N.E.2d 251. Accordingly, the record ... ...
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 8 Diciembre 1981
    ... ... whether the acts alleged to be contemptuous do, in fact, constitute contempt." State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray, (1952) 231 Ind. 223, 235, 108 N.E.2d 251, 257. Accord, Grimm v. State, (1959) ... ...
  • Andrews v. State, 1-1185A295
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 31 Marzo 1987
    ... ... State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray (1952), 231 Ind. 223, 236, 108 N.E.2d 251, 257. Instead, the court's finding ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT