Graves v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CT-00626-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00626-COA ; 2009-CA-00626-COA ; 2009-CT-00626-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-28-2011
Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J.
Holding: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Tunica County is Reversed and Rendered.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Criminal contempt - Sufficiency of evidence - Due process - Recusal of judge - Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): King, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL-OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-12-2009
Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court
Judge: Al Smith
Disposition: FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SENTENCED TO TWO DAYS IN JAIL AND FINED $100
Case Number: 2009-0082

Note: The supreme court reversed and rendered, finding that the trial court judge denied the Appellant due process of law, and that the record contained insufficient evidence of criminal contempt.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Charles B. Graves, Jr.




STEVEN ELLIS FARESE, JR.



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND  

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: Criminal contempt - Sufficiency of evidence - Due process - Recusal of judge - Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E

Summary of the Facts: Tunica County Prosecutor Charles Graves appeared in circuit court on March 12, 2009, with three DUI cases on the docket. Both Graves and defense counsel informed the judge that the first two cases were not ready to proceed because defense counsel had not been provided the video recordings of the arrests. It is less than clear why the video recordings were not produced to defense counsel, but the transcript does indicate that Graves had requested the video recordings from the Tunica County Sheriff’s Department several months prior to the trial, and they had not been produced. Graves told Judge Smith that he asked Deputy Ray to show the tapes to defense counsel two weeks earlier, but the deputy had said he did not have the tapes with him at that time. Both Graves and defense counsel agreed that, because the video recordings had not been produced by the sheriff’s office, the cases should be dismissed. Judge Smith sentenced Graves to two days in jail and fined him $100. While Graves was in jail, Judge Smith presided over a contempt hearing, following which, he modified his prior order by reducing Graves’s jail term to time served, but left the $100 fine intact. Graves appealed his conviction and sentence, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence of the necessary criminal intent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Although not raised in this case, where the provisions of Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct apply, a judge must always recuse and allow another judge to preside over contempt proceedings, civil or criminal. Also, where an accused allegedly commits an act of criminal contempt that requires the judge to rely—in whole or in part—on conduct that occurred outside the courtroom, and the judge is the complaining party (that is, no party to the litigation moved the court for an order of criminal contempt), due process requires that the accused be afforded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. One accused of criminal contempt is entitled to the same protections as any criminal defendant. For example, if the punishment is a fine exceeding $500 or imprisonment for more than six months, the accused is entitled to a trial by jury. In this case, it is undisputed that the convictions involve criminal contempt. The State contends that Graves’s conduct amounted to direct criminal contempt, which involves words spoken or actions committed in the presence of the court that are calculated to embarrass or prevent the orderly administration of justice. On the other hand, Graves argues he was punished for the out-of-court conduct mentioned in Judge Smith’s contempt order, so he argues the citations were for indirect contempt. Because much of the offending conduct cited by Judge Smith occurred—or should have occurred—outside the courtroom, this case is one of indirect criminal contempt—that is, for acts that—in whole or in part—occurred outside the presence of the judge. In presenting its case on appeal, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Graves wilfully and deliberately ignored the order of the court. Judge Smith asked Officer Ricky Ray (the arresting officer in the underlying DUI case) whether Graves had access to the tape. Officer Ray replied: “All [Graves] had to do was go over to the property room and get the tape, just like I did this morning.” On the other hand, Graves claims that he had requested the tape months before the second trial date and that the officer never released it to him. Graves also claims that it would have been improper for him to have taken the tape from the property room, “thereby breaking the chain-of-custody for the evidence.” There is no other evidence in the record suggesting that Graves wilfully and deliberately ignored the court’s order. The State presented insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Graves wilfully and deliberately ignored the order of the court. But even if the State had met its burden, the conviction for indirect criminal contempt could not stand. Judge Smith was the complainant for alleged criminal contempt that occurred, at least in part, outside his presence, so Graves was entitled to due-process notice and a hearing. In cases of indirect or constructive criminal contempt, where the trial judge has substantial personal involvement in the prosecution, the accused contemnor must be tried by another judge. Graves was denied his constitutional right to due process of law. He was given no notice of the hearing, and he was not informed of the charges against him until moments before he was taken to jail. When the court did later conduct a hearing, Graves was not present, and the hearing was conducted by Judge Smith, rather than a different judge.


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