Title: People v. Ellis

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

540 P.2d 1082 (1975) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard A. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 26333. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. September 29, 1975. *1083 John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., James S. Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee. Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr. Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Kenneth Dresner, Carol L. Gerstl, Deputy State Public Defenders, Pueblo, for defendant-appellant. ERICKSON, Justice. This appeal was prosecuted after Judge Matt J. Kikel sentenced the defendant to thirty days in jail for contempt. We reverse and dismiss. After charges of burglary in the second degree and conspiracy to commit burglary in the second degree were filed, arraignment was delayed until the defendant was released from the Colorado State Hospital. When the defendant was arraigned, the information was read to him by the clerk. Following the reading of the information, a brief colloquy occurred between the trial judge and the defendant. The defendant's answers offended the trial judge. No facts are before us which would support a finding of contempt. No warning was given, and the primary factual foundation consisted of the defendant's responses to the court's questions. In our view, the trial judge acted precipitously. The summary contempt power is necessary to insure and preserve decorum in the courtroom. It is ample to prevent disruption and provides the trial judge with the power to punish contemptuous conduct which occurs in his presence. In reviewing a finding of contempt in an earlier case in the same court, we said: In Eaton v. City of Tulsa, 415 U.S. 697, 94 S. Ct. 1228, 39 L. Ed. 2d 693 (1974), the use of a street variety expletive, in answer to a question on cross-examination, was declared to be insufficient to support a finding of contempt: In concurring in Eaton, Mr. Justice Powell also said: In the instant case, no clear warning was given, and the record does not support a finding of direct contempt for which summary punishment would lie. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss.