Case Title: Burradell v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Richard BURRADELL v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-602                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered October 7, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- argument presented for first time on appeal
     not considered. -- An argument that is presented for the first
     time on appeal will not be considered by the court.

2.   Contempt -- court has inherent power to punish for contempt --
     power cannot be abridged by legislation. -- A court has
     inherent power to punish contemptuous behavior committed in
     its presence, without regard to the restrictions imposed by
     statute; summary punishment for contempt committed in the
     presence of the court is an inherent power reserved to the
     judiciary and cannot be abridged by legislation. 

3.   Contempt -- purpose of power of contempt -- allowing
     intoxicated defendant to appear for plea hearing offends power
     and dignity of court. -- An act is contemptuous if it
     interferes with the order of the court's business or
     proceedings or reflects upon the court's integrity; the power
     of contempt is available to uphold public confidence in the
     majesty of the law and to preserve the power and dignity of
     the court; these interests are offended by a defendant who
     shows up for a plea hearing under the influence of alcohol;
     further, the validity of the proceedings themselves could be
     called into question by the participation of an intoxicated
     defendant; one of the values of a court's exercise of its
     criminal-contempt power is its deterrent effect on others; a
     contempt citation such as the one issued against appellant
     lets others know that such behavior will not be tolerated by
     the court.

4.   Contempt -- sentence for contempt not intended primarily as
     means for punishing bad judgment -- criminal contempt used to
     protect court's integrity and authority, regardless of actor's
     subjective intent. -- Contempt citations have been affirmed
     even where the appellants argued that they did not intend by
     their actions to show contempt or disrespect; a sentence for
     contempt is not intended primarily as a means for punishing
     carelessness or bad judgment; however, criminal contempt is
     used to protect the dignity, integrity, and authority of the
     courts, regardless of the actor's subjective intent.


     Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; Tom Keith, Judge; affirmed.
     Doug Norwood, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  David R. Raupp, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice.
     The issue in this case is whether we will prevent a trial
judge from exercising his or her contempt authority when a
defendant appears in court under the influence of alcohol.  The
appellant, Richard Burradell, appeared in Rogers Municipal Court
for a plea hearing.  He had been drinking to such an extent that he
smelled of alcohol and registered .13 on a portable breathalyzer
test.  Municipal Judge R. Douglas Schrantz cited Burradell for
contempt and sentenced him to two days in jail.  Burradell appealed
to Benton County Circuit Court and, after a de novo bench trial,
was again adjudged guilty of contempt.  We affirm, and hold that it
was within the inherent authority of the municipal judge to punish
Burradell for contempt.
     The facts, in greater detail, are as follows.  On March 3,
1995, Burradell appeared in Rogers Municipal Court for a pretrial
hearing.  He had been charged with DWI 1.  The purpose of his
appearance was to enter a guilty plea, pursuant to an agreement
with the prosecutor.  Before entering the courtroom, Burradell was
"screened" by a representative of the Ozark Guidance Center.  The
representative noticed that Burradell smelled of alcohol.  A police
officer was summoned to administer a portable breathalyzer test and
Burradell registered a .13 blood alcohol level.  Burradell's
attorney learned what had transpired and he informed Judge
Schrantz.  The judge summarily found Burradell in contempt and
sentenced him to two days in jail.
     The contempt finding was appealed to circuit court.  Burradell
contended that, in the absence of any disruptive behavior on his
part, he could not be held in contempt for simply appearing in
court under the influence of alcohol.  The State conceded that,
other than smelling of alcohol and registering a .13 on the breath
test, Burradell displayed no outward signs of intoxication.   After
a hearing, the circuit judge found that Burradell's condition
displayed a lack of regard for the court, eroded the solemnity of
the proceedings, potentially impaired the proceedings, and
demonstrated disrespect.  Burradell was found guilty of contempt
and sentenced to twelve hours time served.  This appeal followed.
     First, we address Burradell's argument that the municipal
court had no power under Ark. Code Ann.  16-10-108(a) (Repl. 1994)
to hold him in contempt.  That statute reads as follows: 

     Every court of record shall have the power to punish, as
     for criminal contempt, persons guilty of the following
     acts, and no others:

     (1) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior
     committed during the court's sitting, in its immediate
     view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its
     proceedings or to impair the respect due to its
     authority;

     (2) Any breach of the peace, noise, or disturbance
     directly tending to interrupt its proceedings;

     (3) Willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully
     issued or made by it;

     (4) Resistance, willfully offered, by any person to the
     lawful order or process of the court;  and

     (5) The contumacious and unlawful refusal of any person
     to be sworn as a witness and, when so sworn, a similar
     refusal to answer any legal and proper interrogatory.



     Burradell claims that the Rogers Municipal Court is not a
"court of record" as required by the statute.  That argument is
presented for the first time on appeal, so we will not consider it. 
See Oliver v. State, 322 Ark. 8,