State v. Crum

Citation7 N.D. 299,74 N.W. 992
PartiesSTATE v. CRUM.
Decision Date15 April 1898
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.

1. An order of conviction for a criminal contempt committed in open court examined, and the order, procedure, and conviction sustained.

2. Held, further, that such a proceeding is highly summary in character, and is not a prosecution, within the meaning of section 97, art. 4, of the constitution of the state.

Appeal from district court, Cass county; Charles A. Pollock, Judge.

Taylor Crum was convicted of criminal contempt, and appeals. Affirmed.J. E. Robinson, S. G. Roberts, Ida M. Crum, and Taylor Crum, in pro. per., for appellant. Fred B. Morrill, State's Atty.

WALLIN, J.

The record in this case shows that on the 5th day of November, A. D. 1897, in a summary proceeding the defendant was adjudged guilty of a criminal contempt committed in open court, and was sentenced to pay a fine, and be imprisoned in the county jail. From the order of the district court imposing this sentence, the defendant has appealed to this court.

On November 6, 1897, and while the defendant was in jail pursuant to such conviction and sentence, his attorney appeared before said district court, and upon certain affidavits made in that behalf moved in that court for an order remitting said fine and discharging the defendant from custody, and further asked that, if defendant was not then and there discharged and exonerated, he be accorded a reconsideration of the subject-matter of the contempt. This application was denied, and from the order denying the same the defendant, by his notice of appeal, has attempted to bring such order into this court for review. On said November 6th an appeal to this court was perfected, and subsequent thereto, and on December 23, 1897, and before the record was transmitted to this court, the district court made a certain order, which we find in the record, which reads: “It appearing that the papers heretofore filed in the above case by accident omitted the word ‘the’ from the title, it is now ordered that the said title be amended throughout, nunc pro tunc, as of date December 5, 1897, so that the same shall read as follows: ‘The State of North Dakota, Plaintiff, vs. Taylor Crum, Defendant.” To this order defendant excepted, and the same is assigned as error here. A statement of the case was settled, and the proceeding is now before this court for its final disposition. From the recitals found in the record, we can readily gather the facts which must control our decision of the case, and these may be condensed as follows: Ida M. Crum, an attorney at law, and the wife of the defendant, had been appointed by the district court to defend a party accused of a crime. This occurred on November 2, 1897. At her request, the hearing was continued until the 4th of November. When the case was called for trial, the court, at the request of Ida M. Crum, permitted the defendant, Taylor Crum, to come into the case as an assistant counsel for the accused. The trial proceeded, and in the afternoon Taylor Crum, in the course of the trial, called a certain witness a “crook.” For applying this epithet to the witness the district court then and there fined Taylor Crum the sum of five dollars as for a contempt of court, and at the time said fine was imposed the court plainly said to the defendant “that he could not have anything more to do with that case, and directed that Mrs. Crum be called, and assume charge of the case.” The further hearing of said criminal action was postponed until 2 o'clock p. m. of the 5th day of November, at which hour Ida M. Crum appeared, and made her summing up argument to the jury, and at the same time “the said Taylor Crum appeared, and took his seat at the trial table.” Soon after,-quoting from the record,-“said Taylor Crum began to interrupt the proceedings of the court, and directed that certain things be done in reference to the case, and the court thereupon at once suggested to counsel that he had forgotten the order of the day previous, to which suggestion the counselor remarked that he had not forgotten it, and immediately thereafter the counselor again interrupted the proceedings of the court, and the court then directed that the counselor remain quiet, at which time the counselor began his proceedings in contempt in the way of talking back to the court, and assuming certain positions of defiance to the court upon the court-room floor; whereupon the court directed Mr. Crum to leave the room. The order being disobeyed, the sheriff was ordered to remove him from the room; at which time, while in the custody of the sheriff, in being removed from the room, the especial contempt, namely, calling the court a contemptible cur,” and stating that he “had the court where he wanted him, and that he would settle with him outside,” occurred. It appears that the district court took immediate notice of said language and defiant conduct of the defendant,-the same having occurred in open court, and in the presence and hearing of the court while sitting to try said criminal action,-and then and there orally required said Taylor Crum to give any reasons he might desire to give why the judgment of the court should not then and there be pronounced against him for the contempt of court involved in said conduct and language, and the court then reiterated to the defendant in terms what particular conduct and language the court referred to. Responding to this suggestion of the trial court, the defendant at once made a statement in extenso, which statement covers six pages of the settled case. We deem it unnecessary to set out this statement at length, and shall simply say that in the statement the accused fully admits the fact of using the contemptuous language we have set out above, and nowhere attempts to deny the facts of the occurrence which we have extracted from the settled case, and quoted in this opinion. The defendant, in terms, apologized to the court for so much of the alleged contempt as consisted of the language used in court, and the epithets applied to the presiding judge of the court, but did not offer any apology for his disobedience of the orders of the court, nor for his resistance and defiant attitude when ordered to leave the court room. The statement, as a whole, was an argument wherein the defendant sought to demonstrate that the court was without jurisdiction or lawful authority to direct the defendant to sever his relations with the criminal case on trial, as was done, or to order him to leave the court room when he assumed, in defiance of such order, to take an active part as an attorney in the case, and, finally, was without lawful authority, when he (defendant) defiantly assumed that he would not obey such order, to direct the sheriff to remove him from the court room. It appears, therefore, that this case is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State ex rel. Harvey v. Newton
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1907
    ...is criminal and must be carried on in the name and by authority of the state. Township of Noble v. Aasen, supra; State v. Root, supra; State v. Crum, supra; Kaeppler v. supra; State ex rel. Edwards v. Davis, supra; Haight v. Lucia and another, 36 Wis. 355; Cook et al. v. People, 16 Ill. 534......
  • Acker v. Adamson
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1940
    ...when, by their constitution, they created courts, and conferred upon them general jurisdiction in both law and equity.” State v. Crum, 7 ND 299, 74 NW 992, 994. The Supreme Court of New Mexico dealing with the Uniform Illegitimacy Act, adopted in 1923, in the case of Lopez v. Maes, 38 NM 52......
  • Acker v. Adamson
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1940
    ... ... commenced these present proceedings in habeas corpus directed ... against the sheriff and state's attorney of Minnehaha ... County. Hearing was had before the circuit court and the ... court found that the said Acker was unable to comply with ... and conferred upon them general jurisdiction in both law and ... equity." State v. Crum, 7 N.D. 299, 74 N.W ... 992, 994 ...          The ... Supreme Court of New Mexico dealing with the Uniform ... Illegitimacy Act, ... ...
  • State ex rel. Harvey v. Newton
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1907
    ...involved. In such contempts no formal accusation is required. State v. Root, 5 N. D. 487, 67 N. W. 590, 57 Am. St. Rep. 568;State v. Crum, 7 N. D. 299, 74 N. W. 992. Counsel is mistaken in asserting that the affidavit was only a part of the evidence upon which the court issued the order of ......
  • 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