Smith, et al. v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KM-01410-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-20-2012 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Vacated and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Misdemeanor - Constructive criminal contempt - Due process - Recusal of judge - Service of process - M.R.C.P. 81(d) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens and King, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Pierce, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Chandler, J., Concurs in Part and in Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-17-2010 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: D. Neil Harris Disposition: Found the Appellants in contempt for failure to serve or improperly serving process on defendants in paternity and child-support proceedings. Case Number: 2010-0544 |
|
| Consolidated: 2010-KM-01393-SCT Shane Corr v. State of Mississippi; Jackson Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2010-0511; Ruling Date: 08/17/2010; Ruling Judge: D. Neil Harris 2010-KM-01466-SCT Craig Wells v. State of Mississippi; Jackson Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2010-0577NH; Ruling Date: 08/17/2010; Ruling Judge: D. Neil Harris 2010-KM-01674-SCT William R. Moon a/k/a Rick Moon v. State of Mississippi; Jackson Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2010-0768; Ruling Date: 08/17/2010; Ruling Judge: D. Neil Harris | ||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Misdemeanor - Constructive criminal contempt - Due process - Recusal of judge - Service of process - M.R.C.P. 81(d) |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Department of Human Services retained the law firm of Young Williams, P.C., for a large number of paternity and child-support cases. The law firm contracted process-service companies to serve defendants in the DHS cases. Individual process servers were instructed to serve process on a defendant, complete a proof-of-service affidavit, and send it to the owners of the process-service companies. Upon receipt of the affidavits, the owners, who were notaries public, would notarize them outside the presence of the individual process servers. In four cases, the DHS defendants testified that they had not been served personally. The chancellor then issued show-cause orders for a hearing and issued subpoenas instanter, requiring the process servers (Lott, Corr, and Moon) to appear and demonstrate why they should not be held in contempt for failing to serve process as set forth in their proof-of-service affidavits and for signing the affidavits outside the notary’s presence. The chancellor also issued show-cause orders and subpoenas instanter, requiring the owners of the process-service companies (Smith and Wells) to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt for notarizing proof-of-service affidavits without administering oaths and witnessing the process servers signing the affidavits. At the conclusion of that hearing, the chancellor held Lott, Corr, Smith, and Wells in civil contempt. Thereafter, he conducted a combined “sentencing hearing,” and then found Lott, Corr, Moon, Smith, and Wells in direct criminal contempt and sentenced each of them to thirty days in jail and a $100 fine. Lott, Corr, Moon, Smith and Wells appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The State concedes that the proceedings were for constructive criminal contempt. Thus, Appellants were entitled to due-process protections. Accordingly, the chancellor was required to recuse himself from the proceedings and to issue summonses giving Appellants notice of the criminal contempt charges against them. The chancellor did not hold Appellants in contempt to compel compliance with an order, admonition, or instruction, but rather as punishment for alleged past offenses, which would make this criminal contempt. Since the acts occurred outside the presence of the judge, this was constructive criminal contempt and the Appellants should have been provided with procedural due process safeguards, including a specification of charges, notice, and a hearing. A judge who initiates constructive contempt proceedings has substantial personal involvement and must recuse himself. It is undisputed in this case that the chancellor initiated the contempt proceedings when he issued show-cause orders requiring that Appellants appear and demonstrate why they should not be held in contempt. Thus, the chancellor was required to recuse himself from conducting them. The chancellor did not issue summonses to the proceedings. Criminal contempt defendants are entitled to notice under M.R.C.P. 81(d), which requires service of process. Complete absence of service of process offends due process and cannot be waived. Thus, the contempt proceedings violated Appellants’ due-process rights. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
