State v. Sherow
| Citation | 101 Ohio App. 169,138 N.E.2d 444 |
| Parties | , 1 O.O.2d 100 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SHEROW, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1956 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The statutes governing contempt of court must be strictly construed.
2. In a charge of contempt of court for the violation of a court order prohibiting a certain act, knowledge by the accused of the written order of the court is an essential element; and information that the judge had simply made a request not to do a certain thing is not sufficient to prove the accused had knowledge that the judge had made a written order to that effect.
3. The accused in such contempt proceeding can not be called for cross-examination without his consent.
4. The provisions of Section 2151.14, Revised Code, that 'the reports and records of the [probation] department [of the Juvenile Court] shall be considered confidential information and shall not be made public,' apply only to the probation department of the Juvenile Court and have no application to cases where juvenile delinquents have been sentenced and committed to a state institution.
Cherrington & Cherrington, Gallipolis, for appellant.
Warren F. Sheets, Prosecuting Attorney, Gallipolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal on questions of law. directed to the judgment of the Juvenile Court of Gallia County Finding the defendant guilty of contempt. The assignments of error present two questions of law to be determined by this court, as follows: 1. Is the evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant? 2. Is the order of the court, which the defendant is charged with violating, a valid order? The factual situation disclosed by the record may be summarized as follows: On January 31, 1956, the Juvenile Court of Gallia County sentenced five juvenile delinquents, who were 15 and 16 years of age, to the Boys' Industrial School. On the same day, the court entered an order prohibiting the publication of the names of the juveniles by any person or corporation. Pursuant to that order Judge Howell requested Charles Butler, a reporter for the Gallipolis Daily Tribune, not to publish the names of the juveniles. Butler, the reporter, left the story of the sentencing together with the names of the juveniles on the desk of the defendant, with a note telling of the request of the judge. The defendant, Vic Sherow, is managing editor of the Gallipolis Daily Tribune. The defendant admits he received the notice of the request of Judge Howell not to publish the names but denies that he had any knowledge of the existence of the court order prohibiting the publication of the names of the juveniles. On February 2, 1956, the court, on its own motion, filed the following written charges in contempt against the defendant 'The State of Ohio, Gallia County, Juvenile Court
'State of Ohio
'vs
'Vic Sherow
February 2, 1956
Case No. 570
'John W. Howell, judge of said court, prefers charges against Vic Sherow, and says that said Vic Sherow is guilty of contempt, in this, to-wit: The said Vic Sherow disobeyed the order of this court heretofore made, ordering that the names of the five certain juveniles found to be delinquent in this court on January 31, 1956, be not made public as enjoined in R.C. 2151.14 and against the specific order of the court, by causing the names, ages and addresses of said juveniles to be published in the February 1, 1956, issue of the Gallipolis Daily Tribune a newspaper of general circulation in Gallia County, Ohio.
'John W. Howell, Judge.'
A summons in contempt was issued for defendant, the cause was heard and the defendant was found guilty of violating the order of the court and sentenced to pay a fine of $200, from which judgment and sentence the defendant has perfected his appeal on questions of law to this court.
The only purpose of the proceeding was to punish the accused and not to confer a benefit or restitution upon the plaintiff, and, therefore, it is criminal innature as distinguished from a civil contempt. In a contempt proceeding which is criminal or quasi-criminal in nature, there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and this presumption remains until the guilt of the accused is established beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a proceeding the accused can not be called for cross-examination without his consent. 11 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 155, Section 73.
The evidence in this case consists only of the testimony of the defedant, who was called for cross-examination, the introduction in evidence of the court order prohibiting the publication of the names of the juveniles and the issue of the Gallipolis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crane, In re
...195, 392 P.2d 343, 346 (1964); State University of N.Y. v. Denton, 35 A.D.2d 176, 316 N.Y.S.2d 297, 302 (1970); State v. Sherow, 101 Ohio App. 169, 138 N.E.2d 444, 447 (1956); Matter of Johnson, 467 Pa. 552, 359 A.2d 739, 742 (1976); State v. Bowers, 270 S.C. 124, 241 S.E.2d 409, 412 (S.C.1......
-
In re Contemnor Caron
...guarantees provided for those charged with crime including the presumption of innocence."); State v. Sherow (1956), 101 Ohio App. 169, 171, 1 O.O.2d 100, 100-101, 138 N.E.2d 444, 445-446 ("In a contempt proceeding * * * there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.") As simpl......
-
J. P. v. DeSanti
...records in a criminal proceeding against a former juvenile, but did not testify as to the content of any records. State v. Sherow, 101 Ohio App. 169, 138 N.E.2d 444 (1956), held that section 2151.14 did not give a juvenile court judge the power to enjoin publication of the names of juvenile......
-
State v. Asuncion
...(stating that "[s]tatutory enactments as to what shall constitute contempt are to be strictly construed"); State v. Sherow, 101 Ohio App. 169, 138 N.E.2d 444, 446 (1956) (concluding that "[b]ecause of the arbitrary nature of proceedings in contempt and since they affect personal liberty, th......