Young v. State

• Decision Date: 21 December 1926
• Docket Number: 25,120
• Parties: Young v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

154 N.E. 478

198 Ind. 629

Young v. State of Indiana

No. 25,120

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 21, 1926

1. CONTEMPT.---Failure of record to show that court's statement of charges of direct contempt was reduced to writing held unimportant on appeal.---The statute concerning contempt of court (1082 Burns 1926) requiring that in a case of direct contempt, the statement of the court as to the acts constituting the contempt shall be reduced to writing, it will be presumed that this was done, there being a presumption that the trial court acted in conformity to the statute, and the failure of the record to show that the statement was reduced to writing is immaterial. p. 631.

2. CONTEMPT.---Failure of court to reduce the charges of direct contempt to writing not available error where no objection made or exception taken.---One charged with a direct contempt of court who does not make any objection or take any exception to the action of the court in the contempt proceeding cannot take any advantage of the failure of the court to reduce the charges to writing as required by 1082 Burns 1926. p. 631.

3 CONTEMPT.---Giving false testimony constitutes direct contempt of court although testimony did not constitute perjury.---Ordinarily, false testimony is such an obstruction of justice as to constitute a direct contempt of court, and this is true although it was not in reference to material matter and, therefore, did not constitute perjury. p. 631.

4. CONTEMPT.---Knowingly giving false testimony in trial constitutes direct contempt.---One who knowingly gave false testimony in the trial of a case in a court was guilty of such conduct as constituted a direct contempt of the court p. 631.

From Vanderburgh Circuit Court; Charles P. Bock, Judge.

Herman Young was convicted of perjury, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

W. D Hardy, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General and Frank L. Greenwald, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.

OPINION

Gemmill, C. J.

The judgment of fine and imprisonment, from which appellant has taken this appeal, was rendered in a contempt proceeding in which he was charged with swearing falsely as a witness.

Part of the order-book entry of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, made on August 12, 1925, is as follows: "Comes now the defendant, Herman Young, in person and by his attorney, Lorin H. Kiely, and the court now states to the defendant that said defendant after being duly sworn on oath as a witness in cause number 7823, this court, did testify that His wife Emma Young was out of the city of Evansville and that she was on her way to Chicago,' at the time of his testimony on the 10th day of August, 1925, and the defendant now admits that he so testified, and that said testimony was false and untrue and that he knew that said testimony was false and untrue at the time he testified."

His assignment of errors consists of two specifications, but the second is included in the first, which is that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. Four causes are given in the motion for a new trial, but the only one which is a statutory cause and which is presented is that the finding of the court is contrary to law.

In § 1082 Burns 1926, § 1046 Burns 1914, the law in regard to trial for direct contempt is thus stated "When any person shall be arraigned for a direct contempt in any court of record of this state, no affidavit, charge in writing, or complaint shall be required to be filed against him, but the court shall distinctly state the act, words, signs or gestures, or other conduct, of the defendant which is alleged to constitute such contempt; and such statement shall be reduced to writing, either by the judge making it or by some reporter authorized by him to take it down when made; and the same shall be substantially set forth in the order of the court on the same,...