State v. Heltzel
Decision Date | 18 August 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 45A03-8802-CR-54,45A03-8802-CR-54 |
Citation | 526 N.E.2d 1229 |
Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. William HELTZEL and Mark Kiesling, Appellees (Defendants Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Jack F. Crawford, Pros. Atty., Michael S. Vass, Deputy Pros. Atty., Crown Point, for appellant.
David C. Jensen, Richard A. Hanning, Charles W. Webster, Eichhorn, Eichhorn & Link, Hammond, for appellees.
OPINION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
This is an appeal from a dismissal of a complaint for indirect contempt.
The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal asserting two grounds:
(1) that the appellant failed to file a pre-appeal statement under Appellate Rule 2(C); and
(2) that the motion to correct errors is defective in that it is not specific as required by Trial Rule 59(D)(2).
Proceedings for contempt of court are sui generis and both the Indiana Supreme Court and this Court have held that contempt proceedings are neither civil actions nor are they prosecutions for offenses within the ordinary meaning of these terms. In the case of State ex rel. Grile v. Allen Circuit Court (1967), 249 Ind. 173, 231 N.E.2d 138, the court quotes from the earlier case of State ex rel. Trotcky v. Hutchinson (1946), 224 Ind. 443, 68 N.E.2d 649 as follows:
See also State v. Shumaker (1928), 200 Ind. 716, 164 N.E. 408; Niemeyer v. McCarty (1943), 221 Ind. 688, 51 N.E.2d 365; State ex rel. Neal et al. v. Hamilton C.Ct. (1967), 248 Ind. 130, 224 N.E.2d 55; Linton v. Linton (1975), 166 Ind.App. 409, 336 N.E.2d 687; and T.T. v. State (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 655.
Appellate Rule 2(C)(1) begins: "In civil appeals taken to the Court of Appeals...."
Since contempt is neither civil, criminal nor equitable, it does not come within Appellate Rule 2(C...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crowl v. Berryhill, 17A03-9603-CV-81
...courts. It is purely judicial power and is not the creature of legislation and is inalienable and indestructible." State v. Heltzel, 526 N.E.2d 1229, 1230 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (quoting State ex rel. Trotcky v. Hutchinson, 224 Ind. 443, 68 N.E.2d 649). Indeed, "[t]o deny a court the power to en......
-
B.L. v. State, 84A01-9703-JV-97
...186 Ind. 396, 404-05, 114 N.E. 866, 869 (1917) ("[T]he right to punish for contempt is inherent in every court."); State v. Heltzel, 526 N.E.2d 1229, 1230 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (court's inherent contempt power "is purely [a] judicial power and is not the creature of legislation and is inalienab......
-
State v. Heltzel
...courts. It is a purely judicial power and is not the creature of legislation and is inalienable and indestructible. State v. Heltzel (1988), Ind.App., 526 N.E.2d 1229, 1230. Under the inherent power theory, the statutory definitions of contempt are not so all-inclusive as to exclude other a......