State v. Estill, s. 33729-33730
| Decision Date | 23 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 33729-33730,s. 33729-33730 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Plaintiff, v. Ermie ESTILL, Defendant. In the Matter of the Commitment of C. J. BROOKS for Contempt of Court. In the Matter of the Commitment of Robert REDDITT for Contempt of Court. |
John Caughlan, Seattle, for appellants.
Byron D. Coney, Seattle, amicus curiae, for reversal.
Charles O. Carroll, James A. Andersen, Jr., Seattle, for respondent.
Defendants C. J. Brooks and Robert Redditt were found in contempt of court and sentenced therefor. They have appealed.
Brooks is the fiance of Ermie Estill and Redditt is her father. They gave testimony as defense witnesses in her trial before a jury for the crime of perjury by false declaration of resource statement.
The nature of the contempt appears in this language contained in the court's order:
'* * * that immediately following the testimony of each of said witnesses, each was admonished by this court to remain in attendance and did so remain; that on this March 22, 1956, date the court did, out of the presence of the jury, sign an order citing said witnesses Robert Redditt and C. J. Brooks for contempt of court on the basis of the clearly apparent and partly conceded perjury of each of said witnesses in the testimony of said witnesses; * * *.' (Italics ours.)
The court's order adjudging contempts of court and imposing penalties sets out in detail the testimony of each appellant, which was held to be false and to constitute perjury. The order then recites the following:
'It is ordered and adjudged that Robert Redditt and C. J. Brooks, and each of them, are guilty of Contempt of Court in that they, and each of them, were contemptuous toward this court and to this judge while holding court, and said conduct tended to impair the authority of the court and to interrupt the course of the trial, and that said conduct prejudiced the rights of the plaintiff, State of Washington; and Robert Redditt shall pay a fine of $100 and serve a term of ten days in the King County Jail, and C. J. Brooks shall pay a fine of $100 and serve a term of 30 days in the King County Jail.' (Italics ours.)
The above italicized words show that the court predicated its action upon the authority of RCW 7.20.010 [cf. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1049], which reads:
'The following acts or omissions, in respect to a court of justice or proceedings therein, are deemed to be contempts of court:
'(1) Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceedings. * * *' (Italics ours.)
We do not question the court's finding that the testimony was perjury or that it was intentional and willful, and given for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the trial in which they were materially, though indirectly, interested.
We do not understand, however, that the tone of voice or demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, in the presence of the court and jury, were offensive to the court. It does not appear that they were guilty of any unseemly conduct.
The substance of the testimony of a witness, as distinguished from his behavior and demeanor, cannot be the basis for a contempt under subd. (1) above quoted, which applies to behavior only. This is true even though the perjury in question is intended to affect the outcome of the trial and produce a miscarriage of justice.
This ruling raises two other questions: (1) Is the perjury in question a contempt under the purview of any other subdivision of the statute in question, or (2) under the common law?
The statutory definition of contempts of court is contained in RCW 7.20.010 [cf. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1049] and reads:
'The following acts or omissions, in respect to a court of justice or proceedings therein, are deemed to be contempts of court:
'(1) Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judical proceedings.
'(2) A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding.
'(3) Misbehavior in office or other wilful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, clerk, sheriff or other person appointed or selected to perform a judicial or ministerial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Potter v. Washington State Patrol
...or state law. RCW 4.04.010.7 The legislature has the power to supersede, abrogate, or modify the common law. See State v. Estill, 50 Wash.2d 331, 334-35, 311 P.2d 667 (1957); State v. Mays, 57 Wash. 540, 542, 107 P. 363 (1910). However, we are hesitant to recognize an abrogation or derogati......
-
State v. Estill
...to the filing of the departmental opinion in this case--to which we refer for a statement of the facts involved (State v. Estill, 1957, 50 Wash.2d 331, 311 P.2d 667)--this court granted a petition for After argument en banc, a majority of the court agrees with the conclusion of the departme......
-
Isaacs v. Mack Motor Truck Corp.
... ... March 31, 1952, Mack Motor Truck Corporation sold a new truck in the state of Oregon to A. E. Robb and Ira Bennett, doing business as Robb & Skov Logging Company. To secure ... ...