In Re: Susan C. Smith


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CP-00415-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-20-2006
Opinion Author: Carlson, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Direct criminal contempt
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Graves and Dickinson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2005
Appealed from: Carroll County Chancery Court
Judge: Edward C. Prisock
Disposition: This appeal involves a pro se appeal from the incarceration of an attorney for direct criminal contempt.
Case Number: 2004-0088(P)


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: Direct criminal contempt

Summary of the Facts: Susan Smith, an attorney, was representing a mother and her daughter in the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Carroll County, in Carrollton, in a divorce and a paternity suit, when the attorney was held in direct criminal contempt by the chancellor for comments she made in open court. Smith appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Smith argues that the chancery court had no jurisdiction over Smith’s client because of the possibility of improper service, that her opposing counsel was engaged in ex parte communications with the chancellor to gain a tactical advantage, and that her opposing counsel was at fault for not disclosing to the court information about the attorney who supposedly replaced Smith. Each of these issues lacks merit, clarity, and citations to supporting case law. Failure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues. In addition, Smith was in no way relieved of her duty as an attorney to be respectful to the court by questions of jurisdiction or proper service of process nor was opposing counsel at fault for failing to disclose any pertinent fact to the chancellor. Smith also argues that the judge actually found her in constructive contempt of court, and not direct contempt of court, because his basis for doing so seems to include her actions which occurred outside the presence of the court. If Smith’s actions actually constituted constructive criminal contempt, her due process rights would guarantee her more than the immediate sentence she received, including a different judge to hear the contempt proceedings. Direct criminal contempt may consist of an open insult, in the presence of the court, to the person of the presiding justice, or a resistance to or defiance of power of the court. Smith’s openly disorderly conduct before the chancery court is clear. Smith used insulting language and was displaying both a resistance to, and a defiance of, the appropriate power and authority of the court. She chose to use words in the presence of the court which can easily be said to have a tendency to embarrass or prevent the orderly administration of justice. The chancellor’s finding her in contempt was based solely on her words and behavior at the hearing.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court