State v. Yancy
| Decision Date | 31 January 1814 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. YANCY. |
A person may be indicted for an assault committed in view of the court, though previously fined for the contempt. The plea of "auterfoit convict" shall not avail him, because the same act constitutes two offenses: one against the court and the other against the public peace.
Indictment for an assault and battery, to which the defendant pleaded "auterfoit convict," on which the jury found specially that the defendant for the assault wherewith he is charged has been brought into the county court of Wake, and, on his submission, fined for a contempt, the assault having been committed in view of the court.
The question is whether the plea, under the facts found, forms a bar to this indictment.
The punishment for the contempt is not a bar to this prosecution. The first was in the exercise of a power incident to all courts of record, and essential to the administration of the laws. The punishment, in such cases, must be immediate, or it would be ineffectual, as it is designed to suppress an outrage which impedes the business of the court. The indictment for the assault leads to the correction of the party for the disturbance of the public peace. Although but one injury is done to the individual assaulted, yet the same act constitutes two public offenses, which, according to the circumstances, might require different degrees of punishment. The court may punish, in a summary way, its officers abusing its process by oppressing the parties, or committing extortion, fraud or malpractice; yet none of these offenses are merged in the contempt. If parties concerned in a cause are libeled, this amounts to a contempt of the court, and may be punished in a summary way; but may not the offender also be indicted ? The same consequence would seem to follow in cases of rescue, where the partymight be punished both for the contempt and the misdemeanor.
One offense violates the law which protects courts of justice and stamps an efficient character on their proceedings; the other is leveled against the general law, which maintains the public order and tranquility.
Cited: S. v. Woodfin, 27 N. C., 200; Baker v. Cordon, 86 N. C., 120; In re Deaton, 105 N. C., 64; 8. v. Robinson, 116 N. C., 1048.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Dixon
...for a criminal offense based on the same conduct. See, e.g., King v. Lord Ossulston, 2 Str. 1107, 93 Eng.Rep. 1063 (K.B.1739); State v. Yancy, 4 N.C. 133 (1814). But those contempt prosecutions were for disruption of judicial process, in which the disruptive conduct happened also to be crim......
-
State v. Birckhead
...N.C. 738, 51 S.E. 66; State v. Taylor, supra; State v. Robinson, supra; State v. Morgan, 95 N.C. 641; State v. Nash, 86 N.C. 650; State v. Yancy, 4 N.C. 133. The test is stated in State v. Stevens, supra, as follows: 'A single act may be an offense against two statutes, and, if each statute......
-
Blue Jeans Corp. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
...the validity of the contention that appellants are entitled to a jury trial in a criminal contempt proceeding. It is said in State v. Yancy, 4 N.C. 133, that punishment for contempt is 'the exercise of a power incident to all courts of record, and essential to the administration of the laws......
-
Williams v. Commonwealth Of Va.
...not, they are the "same offence" and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution. In a case such as [State v.] Yancy, [4 N.C. 133 (1814)], for example, in which the contempt prosecution was for disruption of judicial business, the same-elements test would not bar s......