Thrap v. People
| Decision Date | 10 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. C--876,C--876 |
| Citation | 558 P.2d 576,192 Colo. 341 |
| Parties | Robert L. THRAP, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado and the City of Thornton, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert D. Bradley, Edwin S. Culver, Denver, for petitioner.
Orrel A. Daniel, City Atty., Leonard H. McCain, Steven N. Koeckeritz, Asst. City Atty., Brighton, for respondents.
The defendant was convicted of contempt of the Thornton Municipal Court. After a trial de novo in the County Court of Adams County, he was again found guilty. The latter conviction was affirmed in the Adams County District Court. We reverse.
While the defendant was being arraigned in the Thornton Municipal Court on a traffic charge, he twice attempted to explain to the judge some alleged police misconduct at the time of his arrest. Both times the judge explained that evidence could not be heard at the arraignment. This explanation caused the defendant to become 'visibly agitated.' Upon the judge's insistence, he then entered a not guilty plea.
As the defendant was leaving the courtroom, he muttered a comment to his wife. Nobody testified to having heard the content of the comment. 1 Unable to hear the defendant's remark, and noticing the attention of others in the courtroom focused on the defendant, the judge instructed the bailiff to bring the defendant back to the bench. The bailiff pursued the defendant out of the courtroom into an adjoining hallway and returned him to the bench. The judge the demanded that he repeat the comment he had made to his wife and warned him that refusal would result in a contempt charge. The defendant responded that the comment was none of the judge's concern. He was then handcuffed in open court and cited for contempt.
Among other contentions, the defendant here asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support a contempt conviction and that the municipal judge had no authority to order him to divulge a privileged communication. 2 We agree.
In Colorado a municipal court judge 'has all judicial powers relating to the operation of his court. . . .' Section 13--10--112 C.R.S. 1973. One such power, implied by the need to maintain the order and decorum indispensable to judicial proceedings, is the contempt power. Like other inherent judicial powers, this power must be exercised with patience and selfrestraint. A judge's power, 'to punish contempt committed in his presence is not designed to protect his own dignity or person, but to protect the rights of litigants and the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be thwarted or obstructed.' Losavio v. District Court, 182 Colo. 180, 184, 512 P.2d 266, 267 (1973). Judges must be cautious to avoid overreacting when persons not familiar with court procedures, through ignorance or frustration, unintentionally cause minor commotions.
Since the contempt power is rooted in the necessity to maintain the respectful atmosphere appropriate to efficient administration of justice, it should be invoked only when the judicial process has been seriously affronted or disrupted. Only then is there a need to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court or to reestablish the respect owed to it. See People v. Ellis, Colo., 540 P.2d 1082 (1975).
In our view, there was insufficient evidence to support the contempt conviction here because there was no evidence to support a finding that the defendant's remarks to his wife caused any obstruction of justice. The municipal judge's testimony that spectator attention was focused on the defendant does not prove an obstruction of justice. In re People in the Interest of Murley, 124 Colo. 581, 239 P.2d 706 (1951). Without some evidence that the substance of the defendant's comment was heard by someone besides his wife, and that he spoke disparagingly of the court, the defendant's remarks to his wife cannot support the conviction.
The record indicates that the only substantial delay or disruption in court proceedings occurred After the judge required the defendant to return to the courtroom, sought to force him to divulge his prior remarks, and had him handcuffed in open court. That disruption cannot be attributed to the defendant's conduct.
It is clear from the record that the defendant's conviction was founded on his refusal to reveal what he had said to his wife. The defendant, contending that the judge had no authority to demand this information, relies on the husband-wife privilege. That privilege is defined as follows:
'A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver
... ... Edney v. Smith, 425 F.Supp. 1038 (E.D.N.Y.1976); Houston v. State, 602 P.2d 784 (Alaska 1979); People v. Lines, 13 Cal.3d 500, 119 Cal.Rptr. 225, 531 P.2d 793 (1975) 1 ; State v. Toste, 178 Conn. 626, 424 A.2d 293 (1979); State v. Pratt, 284 Md ... Miller could not be held in contempt at the February 9, 1987 hearing for his refusal to reveal the content of those communications. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341, 345, 558 P.2d 576, 578 (1977) ... The prosecution claims that the defendant impliedly waived the ... ...
-
People v. Aleem
... ... 418, 450, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). The dual purpose of the contempt power is to vindicate the dignity and the authority of the court and to preserve its viability. See Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Nineteenth Judicial Dist., 895 P.2d 545, 548-49 (Colo.1995); Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341, 558 P.2d 576, 578 (1977) ... There are limits, however, to the court's contempt power. It may not be used to protect the judge's dignity. In re Estate of Elliott, 993 P.2d 474, 478 (Colo.2000). It must be used with caution and self-restraint to ... ...
- People v. Cornelison
-
In re Estate of Elliott, 99SA306.
...protect the rights of litigants and the administration of justice, not to protect his or her own dignity. See Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341, 343-44, 558 P.2d 576, 577-78 (1977). The probate court imposed remedial sanctions1 in an effort to compel Robinson to comply with the court's order t......