State v. Goff
Decision Date | 10 August 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 17051,17051 |
Citation | 88 S.E.2d 788,228 S.C. 17,52 A.L.R.2d 1292 |
Parties | , 52 A.L.R.2d 1292 The STATE, Respondent, v. A. M. GOFF, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Epps & Hoffman, Conway, for appellant.
J. Reuben Long, Sol., Conway, for respondent.
This appeal is from a sentence imposed by the Circuit Court upon appellant, after trial before the Court, upon a charge of contempt. The sentence imposed was confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days.
At the September, 1954, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, appellant here was a co-defendant with his wife in a civil case tried during that term before Honorable Bruce Littlejohn, Presiding Judge, and a jury. On the second day of the trial the arguments of counsel were completed just prior to the recess for lunch. During this intermission, and prior to the Judge's charge to the jury, a controversy arose between appellant and one Dutch Mishoe, a witness who had testified for the plaintiffs in the civil action against appellant and his wife. The witness was under subpoena in that case.
The controversy with appellant was reported to the Presiding Judge, and after the jury had rendered a verdict in the civil case, the witness, Dutch Mishoe, was duly sworn in open court in the presence of appellant and his attorney, and upon examination by the Court, testified as follows:
Upon this testimony appellant was ordered by the Court to show cause at the ensuing October term of the Court of General Sessions why he should not be held in contempt of Court.
Appellant filed a demurrer to the rule to show cause as well as a return. The grounds of the demurrer will be considered in the disposition of appellant's exceptions in this appeal. The return is in effect a denial on the part of appellant that he was at fault in bringing on the controversy with the witness, Mishoe, and it contains an express denial that he intended any disrespect to the Court.
The demurrer was overruled by Judge Littlejohn and trial was had before him in which there was testimony offered by the State supporting the version of the controversy originally given to the Court by the witness, Dutch Mishoe. This version was corroborated, and it appeared further that Mr. Mishoe was a man 43 years of age, weighing only 110 lbs., walked bent over with a stick, and that he had been disabled from rheumatism since 1932. Without discussing here the version of the controversy testified to by appellant and his witnesses, it is sufficient to state that there was ample testimony to support the findings of fact by the trial Judge, that appellant did use the language heretofore quoted in the testimony of Dutch Mishoe, and that he made the threat contained therein at the time and place stated.
The Circuit Judge ruled specifically that appellant was charged with a direct contempt under the Common Law and not under a statute. By appropriate exceptions and argument thereon, it is contended, (1) that there was no direct contempt because the conduct complained of did not take place in the courtroom itself nor in the sight or hearing of the Judge; and (2), that if such conduct should be considered a direct contempt on the premise that what happened was in effect contempt in the presence of the Court, then Section 15-12 of the Code of Laws 1952, controls, and the sentence not being in the alternative of fine or imprisonment cannot stand.
There can be no doubt about the power of the courts of general jurisdiction in this State to punish for contempt. This power is not derived from any statute but from the common law which from its inception recognized this implied and necessary power, without which contumacious conduct could well destroy the authority of any court.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered in 1888 the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 9 S.Ct. 77, 79, 32 L.Ed. 405, 408, in which the following appears:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Floyd v. Floyd
...v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377, 382, 287 S.E.2d 915, 917 (1982) (citing McLeod v. Hite, 272 S.C. 303, 251 S.E.2d 746 (1979); State v. Goff, 228 S.C. 17, 88 S.E.2d 788 (1955)); see also In re Brown, 333 S.C. 414, 420, 511 S.E.2d 351, 355 (1998) ("The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all c......
-
State v. Passmore
...v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377, 382, 287 S.E.2d 915, 917 (1982) (citing McLeod v. Hite, 272 S.C. 303, 251 S.E.2d 746 (1979); State v. Goff, 228 S.C. 17, 88 S.E.2d 788 (1955)). The determination of contempt ordinarily resides in the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. ......
-
Miller v. Miller
...128 U.S. 289, 303, 9 S.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888) (internal citations omitted) (quoted with approval in State v. Goff, 228 S.C. 17, 22-23, 88 S.E.2d 788, 790-91 (1955)). "Contempt results from the willful disobedience of an order of the court." Bigham v. Bigham, 264 S.C. 101, 104, 212 S.E.......
-
Brandt v. Ozmint
...See Weeks, 176 F.3d at 258. [D]irect contempt involves contemptuous conduct occurring in the presence of the court. State v. Goff, 228 S.C. 17, 88 S.E.2d 788 (1955). South Carolina courts have always taken a liberal and expansive view of the "presence" and "court" requirements. This State's......
-
The untouchables: the impact of South Carolina's new judicial selection system on the South Carolina Supreme Court, 1997-2003.
...152 S.E.2d 669 (1967), State v. Weinberg, 92 S.E.2d 842 (S.C. 1956). (131) Id. at 838-39. (132) Id. at 838 (citing State v. Goff, 88 S.E.2d 788, 792 (S.C. (133) See Driggers, supra note 5, at 1217-18; Supreme Court Justices, supra note 12. (134) Supreme Court Justices, supra note 12 (includ......