State v. Weinberg
| Decision Date | 02 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17154,17154 |
| Citation | 92 S.E.2d 842,229 S.C. 286 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Joe WEINBERG, Appellant. |
George W. Keels, Florence, for appellant.
Robert L. Kilgo, Sol., Darlington, for respondent.
Appellant was tried and convicted of the charge of contempt of Court in who cases and sentenced to confinement in the county jail of Darlington County for a period of four months in each case, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant now appeals contending that the trial Court erred in that the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence were insufficient to support the findings of the trial Court that appellant was guilty of contempt of Court; and that the Court erred in sentencing appellant to imprisonment without the alternative of a fine. It is agreed between counsel that this Court's decision in one case is controlling in both.
At the June Term of General Sessions Court for Darlington County, jurors George DuBose and Clarence Boseman, Jr., were examined in open Court as to appellant and others having approached and discussed with them prior to that term of Court facts relating to a then pending case, at the time having knowledge that they were to serve as jurors at the June Term of Court. As a result, the Honorable J. Woodrow Lewis, presiding Judge, issued a rule requiring the appellant and others whose returns were adjudged sufficient and exonerated to show cause on the first day of July, 1955, why they should not be adjudged in contempt of Court for attempting to influence the said jurors in regards to the then pending case of The State v. Cecil Weinberg and Allen Wright.
The juror George DuBose testified that he lived in Darlington County, was engaged in the upholstery and parts business, but that he had never had any business dealings with appellant; that on June 18, appellant came to his home early in the morning and that he and the appellant and another sat in appellant's car, as it was raining, and discussed the case of appellant's son which was then pending in the Court of General Sessions for Darlington County, appellant stating to him that he knew he, DuBose, had been drawn for jury service for the next week, pertinent portions of the testimony being:
* * *
* * *
'Mr. Keels: If your Honor pleases, I believe we were ruled to show cause in this particular instance.
'Mr. Kilgo: If your Honor pleases, this testimony is to show whether or not the defendant is a constant visitor at his home and whether he had reason to be there other than in connection with this case.
Juror Clarence Boseman, Jr., testified that on Sunday morning prior to Court appellant came to his home and that upon his request he entered his car where they had a conversation concerning Cecil Weinberg's case, a portion of the testimony being:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
'Cross Examination
* * *
* * *
'Re-Direct Examination
* * *
* * *
'Re-Cross Examination
* * *
* * *
'Mr. Kilgo: The Court will of course take notice of the fact that the criminal docket of the week involved shows a case against Cecil Weinberg and Allen Wright for a violation of the liquor law and I also ask the Court to take notice of the fact that approximately two years ago there was a case on the docket against Blake Weinberg for having a fight with a policeman in the town of Darlington.
'The Court: With reference to striking something or marking out something, does the indictment show anything of that kind?'
Appellant's return admits having talked with the two jurors but is contrary to the foregoing on practically all important aspects. He denies any intention to corrupt but on the contrary asked only for a 'fair trial.'
Long v. McMillan, 226 S.C. 598, 86 S.E.2d 477, 482.
One is guilty of contempt whose conduct is such as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during the litigations. Any conduct which is calculated to interfere with the proceedings, by assaulting litigants or witnesses within the precincts of the Court, or preventing or hindering, or endeavoring to prevent or hinder, them in their access to the Court or otherwise, is a contempt. The power of the Court in the matter of contempt cannot be defined within any limits, and the primary question in all cases of alleged contempt is whether there has or has not been an interference with the due administration of justice. For one to change the locks on the door of the courtroom, during adjournment of the Court, and thereafter refuse to allow the judge of the Court and his officers, and the parties to the suit on hearing before him, to enter the courtroom, is a contempt. Dahnke v. People, 168 Ill. 102, 48 N.E. 137, 139, 39 L.R.A. 197, citing Oswald, Contempt, pp. 3, 4, 27, 70.
Where there is deliberate purpose to corrupt administration of justice, accompanied by definite overt act on part on contemnor, designed to carry purpose into effect, notwithstanding failure of design, one is guilty of contempt, Brewer v. State, 176 Miss. 803, 170 So. 540, 541; and the power to punish for contempt is limited to the maintenance of order and decorum in Court proceedings, to the enforcement of its writs and orders, and punishment of acts done out of Court tending to obstruct the due administration of justice. Flannagan v. Jepson, 177 Iowa 393, 158 N.W. 641, 643, L.R.A.1918E, 548.
One interfering with or attempting to interfere with the proper execution of legal process, or with an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Assa'ad-Faltas v. Carter
...cause exists."). Under South Carolina law, "[c]ontempt of [c]ourt is a specific criminal offense[.]" South Carolina v. Weinberg, 92 S.E.2d 842, 845, 229 S.C. 286, 292 (1956), rev'd in part on other grounds, South Carolina v. Kennerly, 524 S.E.2d 837, 839, 337 S.C. 617, 621 (1999); see also ......
-
Brandt v. Ozmint
...overt act on part of contemnor, designed to carry purpose into effect, notwithstanding failure of design . . ." State v. Weinberg, 229 S.C. 286, 92 S.E.2d 842, 845-846 (1956). . . In addition to remedies available for civil contempt, I have the power to punish criminally contempt that pollu......
-
Contempt of Reeves, In re
...by the Legislature, it may not be abridged. See McDougall v. Sheridan, 23 Idaho 191, 128 P. 954 (1913). Compare State v. Weinberg, 229 S.C. 286, 92 S.E.2d 842 (1956) with LaGrange v. State, 238 Ind. 689, 153 N.E.2d 593 (1958). However, we need not address this issue today. We believe that a......
-
People v. Campbell, 82-255
...a contemptuous intent, without proof that the desired effect occurred. (See People ex rel. Kunce v. Hogan; State v. Weinberg (1956), 229 S.C. 286, 92 S.E.2d 842, 845; Brewer v. (1936), 176 Miss. 803, 170 So. 540, 541; 17 C.J.S. Contempt § 8b (1963).) It has been said that failure of the des......
-
Summary Contempt Power in the Military: A Proposal to Amend Article 48, UCMJ
...13 N.E.2d 814, 817-20 (Ill. App. Ct. 1938). 38. State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, 80 So. 2d 685, 691-93 (Fla. 1955). 39. State v. Weinberg, 92 S.E.2d 842, 846 (S.C. 1956). See also United States v. Sinclair, 279 U.S. 749, 757-65 (1929) (upholding indirect contempt for the defendant for hiring pr......
-
The untouchables: the impact of South Carolina's new judicial selection system on the South Carolina Supreme Court, 1997-2003.
...(130) See State v. Kennerly, 524 S.E.2d 837, 839 (S.C. 1999), overruling State v. Johnson, 152 S.E.2d 669 (1967), State v. Weinberg, 92 S.E.2d 842 (S.C. (131) Id. at 838-39. (132) Id. at 838 (citing State v. Goff, 88 S.E.2d 788, 792 (S.C. 1955)). (133) See Driggers, supra note 5, at 1217-18......