Wood v. State, 45503
| Decision Date | 20 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45503,45503 |
| Citation | 227 So.2d 288 |
| Parties | Martha M. WOOD, Jon Thames and Robert J. Kelly v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Waller, Pritchard & Fox, Barry H. Powell, Jackson, for appellants.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Martha Wood, Jon Thames, and Robert J. Kelly from a conviction of criminal contempt in the Circuit Court of Grenada County. The principal question to be decided is whether misrepresentations and disrespectful language contained in a bill of exceptions constitute direct contempt of court. We hold that it does not and that the contempt, if any, is constructive contempt.
Appellants are members of the bar and they were summarily adjudged in contempt of court as a result of a bill of exceptions filed in the Circuit Court of Grenada County. Martha Wood represented one Robert Johnson who was found guilty of contempt of court because of disorderly conduct committed in the presence of the court. Martha Wood contends that she sought an extension of time to file a bill of exception and was informed by the trial judge that he would not sign any bill of exceptions as one was not necessary to appeal from the order finding Johnson guilty of contempt. Thereafter, Martha Wood filed a bill of exceptions which was signed by Jon Thames and Robert J. Kelly, two attorneys who were present in court when Johnson was sentenced. After the bill of exceptions was filed Martha Wood presented it to the trial judge in open court allegedly for the purpose of trying to get the judge to reconsider and sign the bill of exceptions. After the judge read the bill of exceptions he entered an order adjudging appellants in contempt of court. The order detailed the matters which the court considered contemptuous and it states, among other things:
After reading said petition which was presented by the said Martha M. Wood in open court and considering the within matter, this Court finds and adjudicates as follows:
For the conduct of said attorneys, as aforesaid, and the willful misrepresentation of facts as to what they allege occurred when all three of said attorneys were present in Court, for the disrespectful language to the Court, for the gross lack of fidelity to the Court and their attitude as shown by said instrument, it is ordered and adjudged that each of said parties, Martha M. Wood, Jon Thames, and Robert J. Kelly, are adjudged in criminal contempt and each of them are sentenced to serve a term of sixty days in the County jail and pay a fine of $300.
The entire proceedings in this case were had without notice, without specifications of the grounds which constituted the alleged contempt, and without a hearing. Two of the attorneys who were adjudged in contempt of court were not present when the proceedings were had. If the contents of the bill of exceptions constituted direct contempt, no such specifications and notice were required, but if the contents of the bill of exceptions constitutes constructive contempt, due process requires such specifications, notice and hearing thereon.
In Neely v. State, 98 Miss. 816, 54 So. 315 (1910) this Court in discussing what constitutes direct contempt said:
A direct contempt is a contempt in facie curiae. It consists of such conduct or language on the part of the contemnor as interferes with the orderly administration of justice. It may consist of an open insult, in the presence of the court, to the person of the presiding judge, or a resistance to or defiance of the power and authority of the court. 'Misconduct in the presence of the court, which shows disrespect of its authority, or which obstructs or has a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice, is contempt. thus, disorderly conduct in the courtroom, or the use of violence, or threatening or insulting language, to the court, witnesses, or counsel, is contempt.' 9 Cyc. 18 and 19. (98 Miss. at 819, 54 So. at 316).
The case of Grace v. State, 108 Miss. 767, 67 So. 212 (1915), involved an attorney who without the knowledge or consent of the court made material changes in a motion for a continuance, after the motion had been overruled by the court. When these facts were brought to the attention of the court, Grace was cited to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. Although a hearing was had on the citation, this Court said:
There is no direct contempt (that is, contempt committed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MISS. COM'N ON JUD. PERFORM. v. Byers
...which are: "... a specific charge, notice and a hearing." Purvis v. Purvis, 657 So.2d 794, 798 (Miss.1994) (citing Wood v. State, 227 So.2d 288, 290 (Miss. 1969)). The Commission found that this action violated Canons 1, 2 A, 2 B, 3 A(1) and 3 B(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This Cour......
-
Seals v. Stanton
...a specification of charges, notice and a hearing." Purvis [v Purvis ], 657 So. 2d [794,] 798 [(Miss. 1994) ] (citing Wood v. State , 227 So. 2d 288, 290 (Miss. 1969) )[.] Cotton , 336 So. 3d at 1111. As in Cotton , I would decline to apply Wyssbrod to a written form of communication, includ......
-
Donaldson v. Cotton
...constructive contempt requires a specification of charges, notice and a hearing." Purvis , 657 So. 2d at 798 (citing Wood v. State , 227 So. 2d 288, 290 (Miss. 1969) ); see also Ex parte Redmond , 159 Miss. 449, 132 So. 328, 330 (1931) ("Whenever there is any doubt whether the alleged conte......
-
Johnson v. State
...information of contempt is required, but the judgment of guilt must set out the substantive acts constituting the contempt. Wood v. State, 227 So.2d 288 (Miss.1969); Brannon v. State, 202 Miss. 571, 29 So.2d 916 Upon appeal to this Court from a conviction of direct contempt the statement of......