Case Title: Scott v. State

Citation: 310 So. 2d 703

Docket Number: 47947

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1975-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
310 So. 2d 703 (1975) A.S. SCOTT, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 47947. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 24, 1975. Rehearing Denied April 14, 1975. *704 E.K. Collins, Laurel, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by John C. Underwood, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before RODGERS, SMITH and SUGG, JJ. SMITH, Justice. A.S. Scott, Jr., an attorney at law, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jones County adjudging him in contempt and imposing a fine of $25. It appears from the record that Mr. Scott, while acting as counsel for a defendant in a felony prosecution, refused to comply with Rule 14 of the Uniform Rules of the Circuit Courts of Mississippi. This rule requires the filing, prior to trial, of jury instructions which a party intends to request.[1] In the present case, Mr. Scott, as counsel for the defense, made it clear to the court that his failure to prefile was not inadvertent but willful, unequivocal and adamantine. The purpose of his refusal, gathered from his statement to the court, was to interpose a direct challenge to the constitutionality of Rule 14. This is not to suggest, however, that Mr. Scott's refusal to comply with the rule was couched in other than the most courteous and deferential language. Section 144 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 provides: Circuit courts are "provided for" in sections 156 and 158 (and related sections) of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. In Southern Pacific Lumber Company v. Reynolds, 206 So. 2d 334 (Miss. 1968), it was said: And further: *705 In Southern Pacific, supra, the Court also referred to Mississippi Code Annotated section 9-1-29 (1972), which provides: Moreover, the inherent rule making power of courts generally is recognized throughout the country. Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, section 1001 at 25-31 (1969); 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts, sections 44-45 and 82 (1965); 21 C.J.S. Courts § 170 (1940). We conclude, therefore, that the adoption of Rule 14 was within the inherent power of the circuit courts of Mississippi. The rule is reasonable and has effected a substantial reduction in the number of reversals and new trials made necessary by errors in jury instructions. In his able and erudite brief, Mr. Scott suggests that requiring a defendant in a criminal case to prefile requests for jury instructions is an unconstitutional invasion of his right against self-incrimination as protected by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. No authority has been cited supporting this proposition and we find it to be without merit. Responding to the above argument, the State cites Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as bearing some analogy to Rule 14: In United States v. Bass, 425 F.2d 161 (7th Cir.1970), the Court, in dealing with Rule 30, supra, said: Also, of interest in this regard is United States v. Tourine, 428 F.2d 865 (2d Cir.1970): Rule 14, for similar reasons, is neither arbitrary, nor capricious, and, in practice, has proved efficacious in eliminating errors from jury instructions before they are given, so that the number of reversals and new trials for misdirection of the jury has been reduced. The trial court, in its opinion finding Mr. Scott to be in contempt, observed: Obviously, from Mr. Scott's remarks appearing in the record, his actions were motivated by a desire to represent his client and he chose this method of testing the constitutionality of Rule 14. The trial court apparently recognized this in imposing a fine of only $25. We hold that Rule 14 of the Circuit Courts of Mississippi is not an unconstitutional invasion of any right of defendants in criminal cases, nor is it unreasonable. On the contrary, it promotes the administration of justice and the efficient operation of the courts. In this case, the action of Mr. Scott in confronting the trial court with a willful and adamantine refusal to comply with Rule 14 amounted to a direct contempt, for which a fine was properly imposed. This conclusion neither denies nor impairs the right of a defendant in a criminal case to challenge the constitutionality of any court rule by timely motion or objection. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Affirmed. GILLESPIE, C.J., and PATTERSON, INZER, ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur. [1] RULE 14. At least twenty four hours prior to the time that a case is set for trial each of the attorneys shall number and file his jury instructions with the clerk and submit to opposing counsel a numbered copy of the instructions so filed in the case. When the requested instructions are submitted to the court at the conclusion of the taking of testimony the opposing attorney shall dictate into the record his specific objections to the requested instructions and specifically point out his grounds for objection. Instructions will not be given after argument has begun except in extreme cases of injustice and in such cases the adverse parties shall have an opportunity to submit other instructions. Except for good cause shown, the court will not entertain a request for additional instruction or instructions, which have not been pre-filed in accordance with the above. [2] SEE the recent case of Cecil Newell v. State of Mississippi, 308 So. 2d 71 (decided January 27, 1975, and not yet reported), for a discussion of the inherent power of courts to adopt rules.