I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CP - 0 0 4 1 5 - S CT

I N R E: SUSAN C

. SM I TH

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 11/ 2005 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. EDWA RD C. P RI S OCK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CARROLL COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL A N T: PRO SE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: J OHN R. HENRY NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 20/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D D I C K I N SO N , JJ. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T oday ’ s cas e i nvol ves a pr o s e appea l fr om t he i ncar cer at i on of an at t or ney fordi r ect crim inal co n tem p t. T h e a tt o rne yw as re p rese n ti n g a m o ther a n d h er d au g h ter in the C h an ce ry C our tfort he Fir st Ju d ici al D i s t r i ctof C arr ol l C ount y , i n C ar r ol l t on, i n a di vor ce a nd a pat er ni t ys ui t , r es pect i vel y , w hen t h e at t or neyw as hel d i n di r ectcr i m i nal cont empt byt he

c h a ncell or for com m ents she m ade in op en co urt
. T he ev ents t hat l ed u p to t he co m m e n ts

ar e more compl ex, butt he es s ent i al fac tt o t hi s appea l i s t hatt he at t or neyopenl yi ns ul t ed t he chanc er ycour tdur i ng a pr ocee di ng i n w hi ch s he appea r ed i n her pr ofes s i onal capa ci t y . She

n o w a p p e a l s t h e o r d e ro f t h e c h a n c e r yc o u r tf

i n d i n g h e ri n c o n t e mp t
. F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we
a f f i r m.

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. T her e i s but one pr i nci pal fac t t o t hi s appeal : an at t or ney , Susa n C
. Sm i t h, i n open
cour t , on Febr uar y16, 2005, m ade di s par agi ng r emar ks t o t he cour t by s ay i ng, i nt eral i a, “I bel i eve that t he act i ons of t hi s C our thave be en so r epr ehens i bl e as t o di s gus tanycour t , ” and aft er w ar d, s he r efus ed t o genui nel yapol ogi ze, des pi t e bei ng gi ven mul t i pl e oppor t uni t i es by th e c o u rt to d o so . (E m p h a sis in o rig in a l). B e c a u se o f th is c o m m e n t b yth e a tto rn e y , as w e ll

as herot heract i ons t hatday , t he cha ncel l orfound Sm i t h i n di r ectcr i m i nal co nt empt and in c a rc e ra ted h e r f

o r f iv e d a y s. A m o re d e taile d f a c tu a l b a c k g ro u n d is n e e d e d to e x p lain

exac t l yw hatact i ons of t he cha ncerycour tSm i t h found t o be r epr ehens i bl e and di s gus t i ng. ¶3. W hen t hes e event s t r ans pi r ed, Sm i t h, a G r eenvi l l e at t or ney , had been r epr es ent i ng a d e f e n d a n t in a d iv o rc e , an d th e d e f e n d a n t’s so n in a p a ter n ity a c tio n . S m ith w a s p re se n t in

c h a n c e ryc o u rt o n F e b ru a ry1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , f o r a c o n tem p t h e a rin g c o n c e rn in g h e r c lien t. T h is hear i ng w as actual l yt he s econd of t w o hear i ngs i n t he ca s es i n w hi ch Sm i t h w as one of the at t or ney s . T he fi r s thear i ng, a t empora r yhear i ng on m at t er s r el at ed t o chi l d cu stody , had t aken pl ace on Febr uar y4, 2005, and nei ther S m it h norhercl i ent s w er e pr es ent
. T he hus band o f Sm i t h’ s cl i enti n t he di vor ce a ct i on had fi l ed a c om pl ai ntfordi vor ce a few

m ont hs befor e t he fi r s thear i ng. A tt he t i m e t he di vor ce act i on w as comm ence d, pr oces s w as i s s ued byt he cl er k for s er vi ce upon Sm i t h’ s cl i ent , w ho w as di r ect ed t o appea ri n cour ton J anuary25, 2005, fora hea r i ng on t he i s s ue of t empora r ychi l d cus t ody
. Sm i t h’ s cl i entw as
ser ved w i t h the su m m o n s o n January12 , 20 05
. S m i t h m ade an app earance i n the caseSome confusion exist ed as to whe ther the pe rson who conta cted the c ourt was Smith’s sister, 1 working as her secretar

y . This has l ed S mith to point out more than once in her pleading s and her brief that she has no sister, bu t th at h ermother has wor ked in Smith’s office, a

nd that the two ar e of te n c on fu se d a s si sters . 

### 3 r epr es ent i ng t he def

endant
. B ot h at t or ney s and t he cha ncell or , t hr ough a t el ephone confe r ence , l at eragr eed t o resc hedul e t he hea r i ng forFebr uar y4, 2005. Sm i t h cl ai m s s he

w as unabl e t o at t end t he F ebruar y 4 hear i ng beca us e her m ot her had been adm i t t ed i nt o t he th hos pi t al s hor t l ybefor e s he w as t o l eave for t he hear i ng. Sm i t h ar gued att he s econd he ar i ng t hatherm ot herw as admi t t ed t o the h o sp it al t he daybefor e t he hea r i ng s chedul ed for Febr uar y4
. Sm i t h’ s par al egal appar ent l ycont act ed t he cour t by phone s hor t l y befor e t he

th 1 end of the w or k day on Febr uar y 3 t o r eques t a cont i nuance . T he chance l l or t ol d t hi s per s on rd

s he shoul d cont act oppos i ng couns el , and t hat he (the chance l l or ) r equi r ed more i nfor m at i on befor e cons i der i ng t he r eques tfora cont i nuance . O n t he ot her hand, w e fi nd i n t he r ecor d, in c luding an affidavi tsubm i t t ed b yS m i t h, evidence thatS m i t h’s m otherw as actu a lly ad m it ted to the h o sp it al on F eb rua ry2
. S m ith n ev er f o rm all yfil ed a m o ti o n fo r a nd
cont i nuance w i t h t he chanc er y cour t , r at her s he s i m pl y had a copy of her m ot her ’ s hos pi t al

a d m iss io n p a p e rs f

a x e d to th e c o u rt. ¶4. D ur i ng t he hear i ng of Febr uar y 4, 2005, i n t he abs ence of Sm i t h and h er cl i ent , t he chanc el l orgr ant ed t empora r ychi l d cus t odyt o t he hus band bec aus e of c oncerns t he cour thad

a f ter h e a rin g tes tim o n yf

ro m th e h u sb a n d a b o u t th e c h ild ’s w e lf a re d u rin g th e tim e s th e c h ild

w as w i t h the m other
. O ut of con cern for t he ch i l d’s phy si c a l s a f et y , t he ch ancell or al so i s s ued a hand w ri t t en or dert he s ame dayt hatt he C ar r ol l C ount yD epar t m entof H um an

### 4

Ser vi ces go t o t he chi l d’ s hom e, i nves t i gat e t he chi l d’ s ci r cumst ance s , and, i f w ar r ant ed, t ake t he chi l d i nt o cus t ody
. T he hus band, w ho ow ned t he hous e, aut hor i zed t he l aw enfor cement offi ci al s t o do w hat evernece ssary t o ent ert he home t o obt ai n t he chi l d. T he mot her ap p are n tl yr efus ed t o s ur r endercus t odyof t he chi l d t o t he C ar r ol l C ount ySher i ff, s o t he

c h a n c e l l o r , b e l i e v i n g t h e c h i l d t o b e i n d a n g e r , i s s u e d a n a d d i t i o n a l o r d e r o n t h a ts a m e d a y, t hi s t i m e or der i ng t he M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Pat r ol t o ai d t he s her i ff’ s depar t m enti n pr ocur i ng
cus t odyof t he chi l d. E vi dent l y , once the l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s gai ned entr yi nt o t he ho m e, t hey fou nd t he m otherw i t ho ut the ch i l d an d arr est ed the m otheron charges of reckles s endange r m entand ki dnapi ng. T he mot herw as l at err el eas ed on bond. B eca us e t he mot her ref u sed to o b ey the c o u rt ’s ord er b y n o t su rren d ering the ch il d , o r ev en d iscl o sing the c h il d ’s l ocati on , t he h usban d fil ed a co m plai nt forcon t em pt aga i nst his w i fe, S m i t h’s cl i ent. P rocess

w as issu ed an d s er ved on t he mot hert o appea ri n cour ton Febr uar y16, 2005, fort he cont empt hear i ng. T he mot her , Sm i t h’ s cl i ent , l i kew i s e di d notat t end t hi s s econd he ar i ng. I tw as att hi s s econd he ar i ng t hat Sm i t h w as found t o be i n di r ect cr i m i nal cont empt fort he stat em en ts she m ad e to th e c h an ce ll o r. ¶5. E xact l y w hat had happene d aft er t he chanc el l or i s s ued hi s sever al or der s fol l ow i ng th e F ebruary4 heari ng i s not ent i rel ycl ear. A pp arent l yS m i t h, despit e being u nab l e to th
t r avel t o cour ton t he dayof Februar y4, 2005, h ad m ai nt ai ned t el ephone c ont actt hatday

w ith b o th h er c li en t and the c o u rt , w h il e law en fo rce m en t o ff ici als su rrou n d ed the m o ther’s h o m e in th e ir a ttem p ts to lo c a te th e c h ild . T h e c h a n c e llo r u n d e rsto o d S m ith a s try in g toS m i th s t at e d i n h e r m o t i o n , “[ u ]nd er R u le 1.16 o f th e A B A M o d ern (si c) R u les w h ere 2 r epr es ent at i on has co mme n c e d a l a wy e rs h a l l wi th dr aw fr om t he r epr es ent at i on. ” M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of Pr ofes s i onal C onduct1. 16 pr event s a l aw y er ’ s r epr es ent at i on of ce r t ai n cl i ent s i f one of t h ree condi t i ons exi s t s . T he rul e al s o al l ow s a l aw y ert o w i t hdr aw fr om r epr es ent at i on, o n c e i t h a s c o m m e n c e d , u n d e r a n y o f t h e s a m e c o n d i t i o n s . Smith n e ve r atte mpt e d to sh owtho se conditions, or even quotethat portion of the rule
. 

### 5 pr ocur e an a gr eementt hathercl i entw oul d come out of t he home i f s he coul d be guar ant eed t hats he w oul d not be ar r es t ed by t he l aw enfor cement offi ci al s . W hen t he cour tdemanded t o k no w t he locat i on of the chil d, S m i t h w as non -r espon si ve an d ev asi ve. S m i t h adm i t s t hese f a c ts in h e r b rie f

to th is C o u rt. S m ith a lso a d m its th a t sh e u n d e rsto o d th e c h a n c e llo r to b e liev e sh e w a s in ter f

e rin g in a p o lice situ a tio n a n d w a s th u s e n d a n g e rin g h e r lice n se to p ra c tic e law
. T h e c h an ce ll o r also w arn ed S m ith that the c o n seq u en ce s m ay b e e v en m o re
s ever e i f s he w er e h elpin g t o hi de t he chi l d. L at er , t he mot herw as ar r es t ed on cha r ges of

r eckl es s endange r m entand ki dnapi ng, buts he w as t her eaf t erbonded outof j ai l byher par ent s . A ft erSm i t h’ s cl i entw as r el eas ed, Sm i t h s eta t i m e fr ame w i t hi n w hi ch hercl i ent

w as t o s ur r ender t he chi l d, but Sm i t h’ s cl i ent di d nothonort hi s t i m e fr ame. Sm i t h cl ai m s s he h a s h a d n o d e a lin g s w h a tso e v e r w ith h e r clien t sin c e th a t tim e . S m ith late r f iled a m o tio n to

w i t hdr aw as couns el
. T he cha ncel l ordeni ed t hi s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw on Febr uar y11, 2005. 2 S m ith c laim s i n h e r b r ief th a t h e r c lien t th e n re tain e d a tto rn e yD e n n is B a k e r a s c o u n se l,

w hi ch fa ctw as ver i fi ed byoppos i ng couns el att he s econd he ar i ng, w her ei n oppos i n g c o u ns el

rev ea led to the c o u rtd iscu ssion s w ith B ak er in att em p ts to co m e to an ag ree m en t w ith B ak er. A ppar ent l y , B aker l at er t ol d oppos i ng couns el t hat he (Baker ) w as not couns el of r ecor d, and

### 6

t hathe w as notgoi ng t o r epresen t the mot herorhave a ny t hi ng fur t hert o do w i t h heraft er in stru c tin g h e r to re tu rn th e c h ild . It ap p e a rs f ro m th e re c o rd th a t th e c h il d w a s e v id e n tly

r etur ned t he daybefor e t he cont empt hear i ng. ¶6. Sm i t h w oul d l at er cl ai m t hat her fi r s t not i ce t hat s he w as s t i l l r equi red to at t end t he Febr uar y16 hear i ng w as ar ound 5: 00 p. m . , on t he day befor e t he cont empt hear i ng, w hen

th
t he cha ncel l or per s onal l y t el ephoned Sm i t h. H ow ever , i n herbr i ef, Sm i t h admi t s t hatear l i er i n t he dayon Febr uar y15 , s he called the cour ther s el f and l earned t he hea r i ng w as th schedu l ed fo r the n ext day , despit e t he p ers on al no t i ce ser ved on her c lien t. Sm i t h als o admi t s i n her br i ef t hat s he r ece i ved not i ce of t he deni al of herm ot i on t o w i t hdr aw as couns el on Febr uar y14 , t w o day s befor e t he cont empt h ear i ng of hercl i ent
. Sm i t h cl ai m s t hat th dur i ng t hei r t el ephone conver s at i on, t he chanc el l or l os tpat i ence w i t h Sm i t h and t ol d hers he h a d b e tter b e in c o u rt th e n e x t d a y o r h e w o u ld se n d th e sh e rif f to p h y sic a llyb rin g h e r to

cour t
. Sm i t h t hen pr epar ed and f i l ed an ans w er t o t he cont empt pet i t i on agai ns t hercl i entand a mot i on fort he cha ncel l ort o r ecus e hi m s el f. A t t he begi nni ng of t he cont empt hear i ng t he

n e x t d a y , S m ith a sk e d to h a v e h e r re c u sa l m o tio n h e a rd f irst. ¶7
. A t th e o u tseto f the sec o n d h ea ri n g , S m ith stat ed to the co u rt that h er a p p ea ran ce there

w a s u n d e r p ro tes t a n d th re a t o f c o e rc io n . A f ter th e c h a n c e llo r g a v e S m ith a n o p p o rtu n ityto

r es pond t o heroppos i ng couns el w hen s he pr es ent ed herm ot i on for r ecus al , t he fol l ow i ng excha nge t ook pl ace .

B Y T H E C O U R T : A l l r i ght
. M s . Sm i t h, y ou m ayresp ond, and I u n d e r s t a n d yo u rc l i e n ti s n o th e r e t o d a y.

### 7 B Y M S
. S M IT H : Y o u r H o n o r, m yfirstresp o n se, i f itp lease the C o u rt

-- B Y T H E C O U R T : ( I n t e rp o s i n g ) I s yo u rc l i e n th e r e t o d a y? BY M S
. S M I TH: I d o n o ts e e h e rp r e s e n ti n t h e Co u r t r o o m. B Y T H E C O U R T : D o y ou kn ow w here she i s? B Y M S
. S M IT H : N o , sir
. B Y T H E C O U R T : H a v e yo u h a d c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h h e rt o d a y? B Y M S
. S M IT H : N o , sir
. B Y T H E C O U R T : D i d yo u h a v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h h e rye s t e r d a y? B Y M S
. S M IT H : N o , sir
. B Y T H E C O U R T : W a s s h e a w a r e s h e ’ s s u p p o s e d t o b e i n C o u r tt o d a y? B Y M S. SM I T H : T o t he bes tof m yknow l edge, no. B Y T H E C O U R T : W as she ser ved w i t h a sum m on s? B Y M S. SM I T H : I ’ ve neve rs een one . B Y T H E C O U R T : M yinf o rm ati o n is, sh e w as se rve d an d the re turn i s i n t he document s i n t he C our tfi l e. B Y M R
. G W IN : Y es, si r. B Y M S. SM I T H : M r . G w i n has had t h e C o u r tfi l e. I have nothad a p riv ileg e to se e it. B Y T H E C O U R T : O kay
. B ut , at any r at e, s he’ s not her e t oday
. Y ou m aycont i nue. B Y M S. SM I T H : T hank y ou, Y ourH onor . A s Y ourH onor i s aw ar e, I h a v e f iled a m o tio n f

o r a c h a n g e o f

v e n u e w ith in th e m o tio n f o r re c u sa l. W i t h al l due r es pect t o t he C our t , I bel i eve t hat t he ac t i ons of t hi s C our thave been so r epr ehens i bl e as to d is gus tanyC our t , and I as k t hatt hi s C our tbe change d, ei t hert he J udge, oratl eas tt he venue t o change , and t hati s befor e t he C o u r tt o d a y. BY THE C OURT: I ’ l l r u l e o n t h a tn o w. I wa n ty o u t o p u to n s o me p ro o f to th a t ef

f e c t. B Y M S
. S M IT H : Y o u r H o n o r, m ycli en t i s n o t here tod ay ; ho w ev er, I bel i eve thatt he C our tr ecor ds do, i n fac t , sh o w that t her e have been h an d w ri tt en o rde rs b ythis C o u rtw h ere this C o u rt , w ith , I’m told, th ir tyy ea rs exper i ence on t he B ench knew ver y w el l t hat he di d not des i gnat e t hi s chi l d as e n d a n g e r e d ; h e d id n o t h a v e p ro b a b le c a u se in o rd e r to e n ter a h o u se to demand t hatt hatchi l d be r emoved f r om t he hous e; he had no r eas on t o bel i eve that that chi l d w as i n t he hous e, beca us e I as s ur ed M r . G w i n, and I bel i eve I a ss u re d Y o u r H o n o r w h e n w e w e re o n th e p h o n e w ith w h a t w e a ll b e liev e d to be a hos t age s i t uat i on, t hatt hatchi l d w as not t her e. I bel i eve t hat Y ourH onor c i r c u mv e n t e d t h e l a w t h a t e x i s t s b y a s k i n g DHS t o d o h i s wo r k f o rh i m. DHS w a s o ri ginal l yi nst ruct ed to go o ut, bu ti tw as w i t h the poli ce dep art m e n t.

### 8

W h en y o u inv o lved a p o li ce d ep artm en t, y o u cre ated a situ ati o n in w h ich th ere w a s a c u sto d y ; n o t cu sto d yo f th e c h ild , I’m talk in g a b o u t cu sto d yo f a n a d u lt, pr event i ng t hatadul tfr om l eavi ng , p rev en t i ng t hatadul tfr om havi ng t he f re e d o m s th a t w e h a v e h e re in th e U n ited S tate s. W ith a ll d u e re sp e c t, th is C our ti gnor ed t he bas i c fr eedom gi ven t o anyper s on, and t hi s i s a C our tof equi t y . T hi s C our tt ook t es t i m ony , as exampl ed byt he def ens e - - excus e me, b yth e P lain tiff ’s a tto rn e yto d a y . H e a rd tes tim o n y , k n o w in g f u ll w e ll th a t I coul d notbe her e on Febru ary 4
. I n a pr i vat e conf er ence w i t h Y ourH onor th overt he t el ephone, I w i l l s t at e befor e t hi s C our t as an offi cerof t he C our tt hat I w as di s cour aged; t hatI fel tt hr eat ened; t hat I bel i eved t hat Y ourH onorw as n o t o n lysa rc a stic , b u t f

a iled to re c o g n ize th a t I h a d a m e m b e r o f m yf a m ilyin t he hos pi t al , fai l ed t o t ake t hat i nt o cons i der at i on, and act ed on hi s ow n as t he or der s t hat have al r eadybeen e s t abl i s hed byt hi s C our ts t ar toutt o s ay . O n t he C our t ’ s ow n m ot i on t haty ou had not hi ng m or e t han al l ega ti o n s b efor e y ou. T he chi l d w as never r ul ed endanger ed. T he chi l d w as neverr ul ed as i n need of s uper vi s i on. Y ou di dn’ t put t hat i n t he or der
. I bel i eve thatbyfur t hergoi ng on i n l at eror der s - - i n fac t , I t hi nk t her e w er e fi ve w i t hi n one day ; I ’ ve neve r s een that
. N ow , m aybe i n t hi r t yy ear s , I ’ l l be abl e t o s ayI ’ ve s een i tm or e t han o n c e , b u t w ith a ll d u e re sp e c t to th e C o u rt, th in g s w e re tra n sp irin g so q u ick ly and s pi r al i ng bas ed upon w hatY ourH onors t ar t ed. T hatchi l d w as n’ tfound i n t he hous e. T hatchi l d w as neveri n danger i n thatho use . K r i s t i e H unthad eve r yr i ghtt o be i n t h athous e. I tw as her m arit al reside n ce . S h e d idn ’th av e to c o m e o u t. T h is m an is a rese rve o ff icer. H e kn ow s t h e law s. H e ’d bett er know t he law of p robable cause. H e al so k n o w s th e re w a s a d o m e stic v io len c e c h a rg e a g a in st h im . C o n v ictio n o f it m ean s h e d o esn’tgett o carr ya fi r earm anym or e. H e does n’ teven ge tt o go hunt i ng anym or e. H e had a l ot t o l os e. So, bas ed on hi s s ol e t es t i m onyal one, Y ourH onors t i l l di dn’ tdeci de t hatt hatchi l d w as an enda nger ed chi l d, and y ou s entt he D H S out t o i nves t i gat e. D H S, I bel i eve, fac ed t he same i nt i m i dat i on t hat I ’ ve face d i n or der t o be her e t oday
. T heyhave t o come i n her e and de al wi t h y o u o n a r e g u l a rb a s i s . I f y o u s e n d t h e m o u tt h e r e a n d y o u s a y , “ Go ch ec k ; I ’m co n ce rne d ab o u t that ch il d , ” t h ey ’re g o ing to com e b ac k an d they ’re goi ng t o t el l y ou, “I ’ m conce r ned about t hat chi l d. ” A nd t hen w e s t ar t ed t he s econd s pi r al w hen D H S s ay s t hey ’ r e concerned abouti t
. T he s her i ff’ s al r eady outt her e. She’ s notl et t ing them into t he hous e, and y ou gave the s her i ff a n or derat that p arti cul arpoi ntt o us e al l m eans nece s s ar yt o ent era hous e? B eli ev e it o r no t, the s h eriff d idn ’tstan d o n that. T h e sh eriff w as a t l ea st sm art enough t o know w hatpr obabl e ca us e i s , and he kne w he di dn’ thave i t , s o he came back t o y ou and he s ai d, “W r i t e an or der , J udge, ” and i n one of the or der s , i t s ay s , “I ’ ve been as ked byt he s her i ff.
. . ” Y ou di dn’ ts ay , even then,

### 9

t haty ou found t he chi l d t o be i n danger
. Y ou had no pr obabl e ca us e t o for ce that w o m an to exit h er ho u se. S h e d idn ’th av e c u stod yo f th e c h il d
. S h e d idn ’t h a v e p h y sic a l p o ss e ss io n o f th a t ch ild a t th a t p o in t. I bel i eve thatt he fur t her or der s i n w hi ch Y ourH onorhas j us tbypas s ed t he C our tpr ocee di ngs and desi gnat ed t hi s m an as t he fa t hers how s w haty ou t ol d m e i n conver s at i on s an d w h at I w oul d pr ofes s befor e t hi s C our t , as an offi cerof t he C o u rt , that y ou have a l r eadydeci ded t hi s cas e; t haty ou have al r eadydeci ded t hatnot onl y i s he t he fa t her , buthe’ s goi ng t o getper m anent c u s t o d y . Th a t ’ s g o o d f

o rh i m. K r i s t i e ca m e t o m e w i t h t he t houghtt hats he coul d n o t g et a good h e ari ng here, a fai r heari ng here, and I t oo k i t w i t h a grai n of s al t , b u t I s houl d’ ve r eal i zed that s om eone tr avel i ng fr om C ar r ol l C ount yal l t he w ay o v e r to W a sh in g to n C o u n ty h a d a re a so n . T h e re is a ch ild in v o lv e d h e re . T h is C o u rt c a n b e o v e r tu r n e d a t a la ter tim e . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s d o n e th a t. E ven w her e the f

at herhas hel d cus t odyof t he chi l d fort hr ee y ear s , t he Supr eme C our thas , i n fac t , gone back and ove r t ur ned s i t uat i ons s ay i ng i tw as w r ong t o begi n w i t h. W e’ r e goi ng t o m ake t he C hance l l orgo back a nd l ook ati tagai n, and t he C hance l l or , att hat par t i cul ar poi nt , s ai d, “O kay
. I ’ m gi vi ng t h e c h i l d t o t h e mo m. ” W e l l , t h e n , Da d t o o k i tu p t o t h e M i s s i s s i p p i S u p r e me C our tat t hat par t i cul ar poi nt , and t he Supr eme C our ts ai d, “W el l , w e di dn’ ts ay t hatt he C hance l l ors houl dn’ tr ecogni ze t hat t hos e next t hr ee y ear s w er e s pent w ith D a d .” In th e m e a n w h ile, th e c h ild ’s w ith th e m o m f o r a c o n s id e ra b le p e r i o d o f t i me . I d o n ’ t wan t t h a t t o h a p p e n h e r e . I d o n ’ t b e l i e v e t hat an e lev e n -m o n th -o ld c h ild sh o u ld b e to ss e d b a c k a n d f o rth w h ile th e ju d icia ryis d e c id in g th e is s u e s th a t h a v e a lr e a d yc o m e b e f o re it. N o w , I’ve n ev er m e t y o u b ef o re, I h av e n o rea so n to q u esti o n , b ef o re t hi s cas e, but as an offi cerof t he C our t , I know t hatI w as t hr eat ened. I know t hatw hen w e w er e i n a hos t age - - w hatw e al l bel i eved t o be a hos t age situ a tio n c a u se d b yY o u r H o n o r th a t I w a s th re a ten e d b yY o u r H o n o r th a t if y ou di d nott el l m e w h ere t hatchi l d w as . . . - - i f I di d nott el l y ou w her e t hat chi l d w as , w hi ch I had no know l edge of att hatpoi ntand coul dn’ t , t haty ou w er e goi ng t o do every t hi ng i n y our pow er t o getr i d of m yB arl i cens e, t o put m e i n j ai l
. I ’ m t r y i ng t o negot i at e w hen a SW A T t eam’ s out s i de! I di d not fi nd t hatt o be appr opr i at e. Y ou gott o t he poi ntl at er o n in say i ng t hat conver s at i on - - t hi s w hol e conver s at i on i s i nappr opr i at e. W el l , i t w as , butt he po i nt w as, a l i fe w as atst ake, and i tw asn’tt he ch i l d’s. I’m co n ce rne d at t h e p rec ed en t th is sets, so co n ce rne d that I reali ze it ’s confi dent i al , butt hatI have a l r eadycont act ed t he M i s s i s s i ppi C om m i s s i on on Ju d ici al P erf

o rm an ce . N o w , they ’re the o n es w h o to ld m e Y o u r H o n o r’s

### 10

ret i ri ng , and t he Int ernet con fi rm ed it , bu tI can’ tbeli eve thaty ou ’ve don e t his
. I c a n n o t b e liev e th a t. B Y T H E C O U R T : M s. S m ith , I’m g o in g to g iv e y o u a n o p p o rtu n ityto w i t h d r a w a n d a p o l o g i z e f o rw h a tyo u ’ v e s a i d t o t h e C o u r tt o d a y. B Y M S . S M IT H : S ir, I sta n d o n w h a t I h a v e p re se n ted to th e C o u rt. B Y T H E C O U R T : O kay
. T hi s i s a di r ect cont empt hear i ng. W haty ou s ayaboutt he C our t , m anyof tho se fac t s ar e unt r ue. T hey ’ r e dow nr i ght f a lse h o o d s o f w h a t th e C o u rt h a s s a id a n d d o n e . Y o u r a tti tu d e h a s c o n tin u a lly b e e n c o n tem p tu o u s o f th e C o u rt o n th e p h o n e . Y o u r a tti tu d e to d a yis cont empt uous of t he C o u rt
. D o y ou have a ny t hi ng t o s ayi n y ourdefe ns e, beca us e t hi s i s a di r ectcont empt hear i ng, ot hert han w haty ou’ ve s ai d? B Y M S. SM I T H : I r egr et t hat Y our H onor has per cei ved my t es t i m ony b ef o re this C o u rtin tha t m an n er. B Y T H E C O U R T : O kay
. T he C our t fi nds y ou i n cont empt , or der s t hat y ou be di r ect l yi ncar cer at ed forfi ve ( 5) day s i n j ai l , and y ou’ r e i n t he cus t ody of t he s her i ff. ¶8. Sm i t h w as pl ace d i n t he countyj ai l for t w o ni ght s unt i l a pos t
- cont empt s t atus hear i ng

w a s h e ld o n F e b ru a ry1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , a t w h ich tim e th e c h a n c e llo r ga v e S m ith a n o p p o rtu n ityto

a p o l o g i z e , whi c h s h e r e f u s e d t o d o i n wha t t h e c h a n c e l l o r p e r c e i v e d t o b e a genui ne and

s i ncer e manner. A ft er w ar d, Sm i t h compl et ed s er vi ng t he t hr ee da y s r emai ni ng on her

s ent ence . T he cha ncel l or , on hi s ow n m ot i on, l at errec u sed h imse l f. Sm i t h l at erfi l ed a

m oti on for r el i ef from j ud gm ent w i t h the chan cerycou rtaft er l earni ng of the recusal , bu tal so aft erfi l i ng not i ce of

t he appea l t o t hi s C our t
. Sm i t h, r epr es ent i ng her s el f, now appea l s t he

c o n v ictio n o f

d ire c t cr im in a l co n tem p t. S m ith ra ise s f iv e iss u e s, so m e o f

w h ich w e f

in d to b e irre lev a n t, an d n o n e o f w h ich h a v e a n ym e rit.

DI S CU S S I ON ¶9. W hen t hi s C our tr evi ew s cas es of cr i m inal cont empt , t he s t andar d of r evi ew i s ab in itio
. B ra m e v . S ta te , 755 So. 2d 1090, 1093- 94 ( M i s s . 2000) ( ci t i ng T e rr y v . S ta te , 718 So.

### 11

2d 1097, 1103 ( M i s s . 1998) )
. “[T] hi s C our tpr ocee ds ab i ni t i o t o det er m i ne w het herthe

r ecor d pr oves t he appel l ant gui l t yof cont empt bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” P u rv is v. P u rv is , 657 So. 2d 794, 797 ( M i s s . 1994) ( ci t i ng L a m a r v . S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). T he bur den of pr oof t o es t abl i s h t hatcont empt has been c om m i t t ed i s on t he par t yas s er t i ng th a t c o n te m p tu o u s c o n d u c t h a s o c c u rr e d
. I n Inter es t

of Hol m es , 35 5 So
. 2d 67 7, 67 9 (M i ss. 1978)
. I n a pr ocee di ng for cr i m i nal cont empt , evi dence of gui l tm us tbe es t abl i s hed bey ond

a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. I

d . I . W HETH ER QU ES TI ON S OF J URI S DI CTI ON OV ER S M IT H ’S C L IE N T O R T H E A C T IO N S O F P L A IN T IF F ’S COUNS EL EX ONER AT E S M I TH OF HER A CT I ONS
. ¶10. Sm i t h at t empt s t o fr ame t he fi r s t t hr ee i s s ues as as s i gnm ent s of err oron t he par tof t he chanc el l orconce r ni ng j ur i s di ct i on, and on t he par tof heroppos i ng couns el fornoti nfor m i ng t he tr i al cou rtof h er per son a l s itu a tio n , or of t he p ossi bil i t yof n ew cou nsel
. S m i t h fir st

c laim s th e c h a n c e ryc o u rt h a d n o ju risd ictio n o v e r S m ith ’s c lien t b e c a u se o f th e p o ss ib ili ty of i m pr opers er vi ce, fr ami ng t he i s s ue t hi s w ay : “[w ] het hert he cour thad j ur i s di ct i on over t he def endants uch t hatanyhear i ng t empora r yorot her w i s e w oul d be hel d. ” I n hers econd

as s i gnm entof err or , Sm i t h i n es s ence cl aim s t hatheroppos i ng couns el w as engage d i n ex p a rte c o m m u n ica tio n s w ith th e c h a n c e llo r to g a in a tac tica l ad v a n tag e , fr a m in g th e iss u e th is

w ay : “[w ] het her pl ai nt i ff’ s couns el w as obl i gat ed [t o] actw i t h candort o t he t r i bunal and at al l t i m es w het hers uch vi ol at i on of s ame fuel ed t he fi r e fort h e eve nt s t hatt r ans pi r ed on Febr uar y16, 2005. ” In he rt hi r d as s i gnm entof err or , Sm i t h cl ai m s heroppos i ng couns el w as

### 12

a t f a u lt f o r no t d isc lo sin g to th e c o u rt in f o rm a tio n a b o u t B a k e r, th e a tto rn e y w h o su p p o se d ly

re p lac e d S m ith , fr a m in g th e iss u e th is w a y : “ [ w ]h e th e r p lain tiff ’s c o u n se l w a s o b lig a ted to i m m edi at el yadvi s e t he cour tand couns el of r ecor d for t he defe ndant t hatt he def endanthad

s ought , hi r ed and r ece i ved advi s e ( s i c) fr om new at t or ney . M s . Sm i t h coul d nothave be en
r epr es ent i ng t he def

endantatt he t i m e the c our tdemanded M s . Sm i t h’ s pr es ence , t hus t he p lai n ti ff ’s att o rne yh ad the last o p p o rtu n ityto av o id the ev en ts w h ich tran sp ir ed o n F eb rua ry 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 .” ¶ 1 1
. E a c h o f t h e s e “ i s s u e s ” l a c k s me r i t , c l a r i t y , a n d c i t a t i o n s t o s u p p o r t i n g c a s e l a w. S m ith ’s f

e w c itatio n s to th e M iss iss ip p i P ro f e ss io n a l R u les o f

C o n d u c t ar e irre lev a n t. “Fai l ur e t o ci t e r elevantaut hor i t yobvi at es t he appe l l at e cour t ’ s obl i gat i on t o r evi ew s uch i s s ues . ” B

y ro m v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 863 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng S im m o n s v . S ta te , 805 So. 2d 452, 487 ( M i s s . 2001) )
. “Thi s C our thas hel d t hati ti s t he dut yof an a ppel l antt o pr ovi de

au tho ri tyan d su p p o rto f a n assig n m en t. If a p arty d o es n o t p rov ide this su p p o rtthis C o u rt i s underno dut y t o cons i der as s i gnm ent s of err orw hen no author i t yi s ci t ed. ” Ho o p s v . S ta te , 6 8 1 S o .2 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). A ttem p tin g to d e c ip h e r e x a c tly

w hi ch err or s Sm i t h ar gues occurr ed att he t r i al l evel i s di ffi cul t
. Fi r s t , ques t i ons of j ur i s di ct i on overhercl i entand pr opers er vi ce of pr oces s on hercl i entar e ent i r el yi r r el evant i n t hi s cas e. T he mat terbefor e us now on appea l ar e Sm i t h’ s char ges of di r ectcr i m i nal cont empt of cour t
. Sm i t h w as i n no w ay r el i eved of her dut y as an at t or neyt o be r es pect ful t o t he cour tbyques t i ons of j ur i s di ct i on or pr oper s er vi ce of pr oces s . A s t o Sm i t h’ s s econd

### 13

and t hi r d as s i gnm ent s of err or , oppos i ng couns el i n t hi s ca se w as s i m pl ynotatfaul tfor fai l i ng t o d i s c l o s e a n y p e r t i n e n t f a c t t o t h e c h a n c e l l o r . Th e f a c t s t h a t Smi t h ’ s moth er had been a dm i t t ed t o t he hos pi t al and t hathercl i enthad cont act ed a ne w at t or ney w er e al r eady know n t o t he cour t
. W hil e it is t r ue t hatSm i t h fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw as couns el of

r ecor d, i ti s al s o t r ue t hat her m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw w as deni ed by t he chance l l or . Sm i t h t hus

con ti n ued t o be t he at t or neyof r ecor d r epr es ent i ng t he mot her , and Sm i t h s houl d nothave

as s um ed ot her w i s e s i nce he rm ot i on to w it h d raw w as deni ed. I n anycas e, Sm i t h, as an offi cerof t he cour t , w as nevergi ven l i cens e t o s t r ayfr om h er ch arge and ethi cal

r es pons i bi l i t i es as a l aw y er . T he quest i ons of w het her t he fa ct s Sm i t h cons i der ed per t i nent t o her fi r s t t hr ee i s s ues w er e know n byt he t r i al cour t , orw het herheroppos i ng at t or neyw as obl i gat ed t o di s cl os e t hes e fact s t o t he chance l l or have no bear i ng w hat s oever on t he i s s ues p re se n ted b yth is a p p e a l. T h u s, th e se “ iss u e s” a re w ith o u t m e rit. II. W H E T H E R T H E C H A N C E L L O R ’S F IN D IN G O F S M IT H ’S CRI M I N A L C O N T E M P T S H O ULD H AVE BEEN CO NST RUC TI VE AND NO T DI R ECT, AFF OR DI NG HER M O R E P R O C ED U R A L SA FE G U A R D S. ¶1 2
. S m ith fra m es h er n ex t tw o assig n m en ts o f erro r in this w ay : “[ w ]he the r th e c o u rt fai l ed to provide procedu ral du e process t o M s. S m ith , t he d efen dan t ’s cou nsel w hen M s. Sm i t h w as char ged and convi ct ed of di r ect cr i m i nal cont empt ” and “[w ] het hert he t r i al j udge

er r ed w hen he found defe ns e couns el i n di r ectcont empt of cour t
. ” A ft erat t empt i ng t o gl ean a cohe r entar gum entfr om Sm i t h’ s b r i efs , w e have det er m i ned t hatSm i t h evi dent l yar gues t hatt he j udge ac t ual l yfound her i n cons t r uct i ve cont empt of cour t , and notdi r ectcont empt

### 14

of cour t , beca us e hi s bas i s fordoi ng s o s eems t o i ncl ude heract i ons w hi ch occ ur r ed out s i de t he pr es ence of t he cour t
. I f t hi s w er e t he cas e, Sm i t h w oul d i ndeed be due more pr ocedur al

s afe guar ds t han s he w as gi ven i n t hi s cas e. ¶ 1 3
. T h e a n a ly sis f

o r de ter m in in g th e typ e o f c o n tem p t b e f o re th e C o u rt w a s s e t o u t b y th is C our ti n C o o

p e r T ire & R u b b e r C o . v. Mc G ill , 8 9 0 S o . 2 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 8 -69 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). C o n te m p t c o n v ic tio n s a re to b e c a re f u lly e x a m in e d
. Me lvin v . S ta te , 210 M i s s . 132, 48 So. 2 d 856 ( 1950)
. “G ener al l ys peaki ng, cont empt m at t er s ar e comm i t t ed t o t he s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i on of t he t r i al cour t w hi ch, byi ns t i t ut i onal ci r cumst ance and bot h t empora l and vi s ual pr oxi m i t y , i s i nfi ni t el y m or e compet entt o deci de t he mat t ert han w e ar e. ” C um ber land v. Cum be r land , 564 So. 2d 839, 845 ( M i s s . 1990)
. T he fi r s t ques t i on i s w het her t he cont empt i s ci vi l orcr i m i nal i n natur e, w hi ch w e det er m i ne by l ooki ng att he pr i m ar ypurpos e of the

c o n te m p t o rd e r. C oo

per T ire , 890 So. 2d at868. “I f t he pr i m ar ypurpos e of the cont empt

o rde r i s to e n fo rce the righ ts of p ri v ate p artyli tiga n ts or en fo rce co m p li an ce w ith a c o u rt

o rd e r, th e n th e c o n tem p t is c iv il. T h e c o n tem n o r m a yb e jaile d o r f in e d f o r c iv il co n tem p t; h o w e v e r, th e c o n te m n o r m u s t b e re lie v e d o f th e p e n a lty w h e n h e p e rf o rm s th e re q u ir e d a c t.” I d. ( c i t i ng P u rv is v . P u rv is , 6 5 7 S o . 2 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 6 -9 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 )). In a c a se o f c iv il

c o n te m p t , w e w o u ld b e b o u n d b yth e m a n if e s t e rr o r r u le
. I

d. If , h o w e v e r, th e o rd e r is des i gned t o puni s h t he cont emnor fordi s obedi ence of a c our tor der , t he cont empt i s cr i m i nal

a n d p u n is h m e n t d o e s n o t te rm in a te u p o n c o m p lia n c e w ith th e c o u rt o rd e r. C om m on Cau se
o f Miss . v. S m ith , 548 So. 2d 412, 415- 16 ( M i s s . 1989)
. A j u d g e issues a ci t at i on for

### 15

c rim in a l co n tem p t to v in d ica te th e d ig n itya n d a u th o rityo f th e c o u rt. T h is is p ro p e r o n ly

w hen t he cont emnor has w i l ful l y , del i ber at el y and cont um aci ous l y i gnor ed t he cour t , ort he

c o u rt ’s d ir e c tiv e . P re m e a u x v . Sm ith , 569 So. 2d 681, 6 8 4 (M iss. 1990) ( ci t i ng C ooperv. K eye s , 510 So. 2d 518, 5 1 9 ( M i s s . 1987) )
. “Thi s C our ti s notbound byt he mani fes ter r or rule w h en the a p p ea l i n v o lves a c o n v ic tio n o f c ri m inal co n tem p t. Instea d , this C o u rt pr ocee ds ab i ni t i o t o det er m i ne w het her t he r ecor d pr oves t he appe l l antgui l t yof cont empt bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” P u rv is , 6 5 7 S o . 2 d a t 7 9 7
. See al s o L am ar , 607 So. 2d at130; Pr e m e aux , 5 6 9 S o . 2 d a t 6 8 3 -8 4 ; M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -5 1 -1 1 (S u p p . 1 9 9 4 ) (g e n e ra l sta tu te per t ai ni ng t o cont empt appea l s )
. I n t hi s cas e, t he cont em p t w as clea rl ycr i m i nal , as t he chanc el l or ’ s or derw as t o puni s h Sm i th forherw or ds and t o vi ndi cat e t he di gni t yand authori t yof the cou rt , no tt o en force t he ri gh t s of an yof the l i t i gan t s. ¶ 1 4
. W e f

u rth e r d isc u ss e d th e tw o f o rm s o f c rim in a l c o n tem p t, d ire c t a n d c o n stru c tiv e , in I n re W il li am s on , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d 2 2 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). D i r ect cr i m i nal cont empt i nvol ves w or ds s poken or act i ons comm i t t ed i n t he p re se n c e o f

th e c o u rt th a t ar e c a lcu late d to e m b a rra ss o r p r e v e n t th e o rd e rly admi ni s t r at ion of

j us t i ce. Puni s hm entfordi r ectcont empt m aybe met ed out i ns t ant l ybyt he j udge i n w hos e pr es ence t he off ens i ve conduc tw as c o m m itte d
.... U n li k e d ir ec t co n te m p t, co n stru cti v e c o n tem p t i n v o lves ac ti o n s w h ich a re comm i t t ed o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e c o u r t
. . . I n t h e c a s e o f c o n s t r u c t i ve c rim in a l co n tem p t, w e h a v e h e ld th a t d e f e n d a n ts m u st b e p ro v id e d w ith pr ocedur al due pr oces s s afe guar ds , i n c l u d i n g a s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f cha r ges , not i ce, and a he ar i ng. I d. at 2 3 7 (cit ati o n s o m it ted). B ec au se th e tri al j u d g e e labo rated so m ew h at at t h e F eb rua ry 16 hear i ng about act i ons of Sm i t h t hatoccurr ed out s i de t he cour t , Sm i t h appar ent l yar gues

### 16

n o w th a t sh e sh o u ld h a v e a c tu a llyb e e n c h a rg e d w ith c o m m itt in g c o n stru c tiv e , an d n o t d ire c t,

c rim in a l co n tem p t. If S m ith ’s a c tio n s a c tu a llyc o n stitu ted c o n stru c tiv e c rim in a l co n tem p t, her due proc es s r i ght s w oul d guar ant ee her m or e t han t he i m m edi at e s ent ence s he r ece i ved, i ncl udi ng a di ffe r entj udge t o heart he cont empt pr ocee di ngs . “A s not ed, a per s on char ged

w i t h cons t r uct i ve cr i m i nal cont empt i s aff or ded ce r t ai n pr ocedur al s afe guar ds. T he ci t i ng ju d g e m u s t r e c u s e h im s e lf f ro m c o n d u c tin g th e c o n te m p t p ro c e e d ing s inv o lving the c h arg e s .” C oo per T ire , 890 So. 2d at869. “[I ] ti s nece s s ar yfor t hati ndi vi dual t o be t r i ed byanot her j udge i n c a s e s o f

c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n t e mptwhe r e t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a s s u b s t a n t i a l p e r s o n al i nvol vement i n t he pr os ecut i on. ” I n r e W il li am s on , 838 So. 2d at238 ( ci t i ng T e rr y v . S ta te , 718 So. 2d 1 0 9 7 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 8 ) )
. Howev e r , t h i s i s n o t r e mot e l y c l o s e t o b e i n g a c as e of

cons t r uct i ve cont empt ; t her efor e, Sm i t h w as notdue more t han t he hea r i ng s he r ece i ved, and she w as t hu s not deni ed an ydu e process prot ect i on s. ¶15. W e have hel d t hata cha r ge of cont empt of cour tcons i s t s of w or ds s poken oract s done in th e p re se n c e o f

th e c o u rt w h ich ten d to e m b a rra ss th e c o u rt o r p re v e n t th e o rd e rly

a d m in is tr a tio n o f

ju s tic e . J

o rda n v . S ta te , 2 1 6 M iss. 5 4 2 , 6 2 S o . 2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 8 (19 5 3 ). M o re
s peci fi cal l y , di r ect cr i m i nal cont empt “maycons i s tof an ope n i ns ul t , i n t he pr es ence of t he

cour t, to the p erson of t he pr es i di ng j us t i ce, ora r es i s t ance t o ordefi ance of pow erof t he

cour t
. ” N

e e ly v . S ta te , 98 M i s s . 816, 54 So. 315, 316 ( 1911)
. N o s hor t age o f M i s s i s s i ppi

ca se law ex ist s d ef

ining d ir ec t crim inal co n tem p t as suc h
. “[ D ]i so rde rl y co n d u ct in the co u rt

r oom , or t he us e of vi ol ence , or t hr eat eni ng, ori ns ul t i ng l anguage t o t he cour t , w i t nes s es , or

### 17

couns el i s cont empt
. ” I d. A cont empt w hi ch i s di r ect , i n t he i m m edi at e p rese n ce of t he

c o u rt , m a yb e s u m m a ri ly p u n is h e d w ith o u t a f f id a v it, p le a d in g o r f

o rm a l c h a rg e s . V

a rv a ris

v . S ta te , 5 1 2 S o . 2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 7 -8 8 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ). See al s o Mis s . B arv. L um um ba , 912 So. 2d 8 7 1 , 8 8 0 -82 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ); L u m u m b a v . S ta te , 8 6 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 0 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); T h o m a s v . S ta te , 734 So. 2d 339, 341 ( M i s s . C t
. A pp. 1999)
. Fi ndi ng anot herfac t ual

sce n ario tha t fi ts m o re sq u are lyw ith in the law than this on e is h a rd to im ag ine. S m ith ’s openl ydi s or der l yconductbefor e t he chanc er y cour t i s cl ear . Sm i t h us ed i ns ul t i ng l anguage and w as di s pl ay i ng bot h a r es i s t ance to, an d a def i ance of, t he appr opr i at e pow erand

a u th o rityo f

th e c o u rt. S h e c h o se to u se w o rd s in th e p re se n c e o f th e c o u rt w h ich c a n e a sily be s ai d t o have a t endenc yt o embar r as s orpr eventt he or der l yadmi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce. ¶16. W e do not d o u b t t he exi s t ence of Sm i t h’ s pas s i onat e conce r n for her cl i ent ort hat Sm i t h bel i eved s he w as ac ti ng i n t he bes ti nt er es t s of hercl i ent , not w i t hs t andi ng t hatt he

c h a n c e llo r d isa g re e d w ith w h a t th e b e st in ter e sts o f th e c h ild w e re . S m ith a c ted a s s h e d id al m os tcer t ai nl ybeca us e of w hats he per cei ved t o be an unw ar r ant ed s i eg e b yl aw enfor cementon Febr uar y4. T hough t hi s m i ghthave be en caus e for heri m m edi at e ac t i on on t hatday , hercont i nued def i ance and host i l i t y t ow ar d t he cha ncel l oral m os tt w o w eeks l at er cl ear l ycons t i t ut es cont empt
. T he chanc el l or ’ s fi ndi ng heri n cont empt w as bas ed s ol el yon h e r w o r d s a n d b e h a v io r a t th e F e b ru a ry1 6 h e a rin g . T h e c h a n c e llo r f e lt i t n e c e ss a ryto pr ovi de s om e r ecor d of t he r el at i ons hi p bet w een Smi t h and t he cha ncerycour t , as w el l as t he b eh av ior d isplay ed b yea ch in the ev en ts l ea d ing u p to the h ea ri n g . H er w o rds, af ter all , w ere

### 18

des cr i bi ng t h e c o u r t ’ s a c t i o n s a n d t h o s e e v e n t s . Howev e r , t h e c h a n c e l l o r ’ s r e a s o n s for fi ndi ng Sm i t h i n di r ectcr i m i nal cont empt had l i t t l e t o do w i t h t he pr e- hear i ng event s , w hi ch att hatpoi nthad es s ent i al l ybecome i r r el evant , but had eve r y t hi ng t o do w i t h Sm i t h’ s actual

w or ds i n open cour t r efe r r i ng t o t he cour tas r epr ehens i bl e and di s gus t i ng. T hi s w as m ade

ev en m o re c lear o n the p o st- co n tem p t st atus h ea ri n g tw o d ay s into S m ith ’s s en tenc e, w h ere t he j udge made i tcl eart hatt he key s t o t he j ai l hous e doorw ere in h erhands , and t hathe

w o u ld glad ly release S m ith fro m h er se n tenc e if sh e w ere w il li n g to ap o log ize to the co u rt for t ho se speci fi c w ords.

B Y T H E C O U R T : Y o u m a d e a sta tem e n t, so m e th in g to th is e f f e c t, add res sed t o the C ou rt : “T his C ou rthas bee n so reprehensi ble as t o d i sgust anyC our t
. ” Y ou’ r e di r ect l ycall i ng t he C our tr epr ehens i bl e and di s gus t i ng. D o y o u a p o lo g ize f

o r th a t? B Y M S. SM I T H : I bel i eve thati s l anguage quot ed w i t h t he M i s s i s s i ppi S u p rem e C o u rtw ith w h ich to ad d ress c ase law in -- B Y T H E C O U R T : ( I nt erpos i ng) D o y ou apol ogi ze? B Y M S
. S M IT H : Pe rha p s I did n o t hav e a n yau tho ri ty-- B Y T H E C O U R T : ( I nt erpos i ng) D o y ou apol ogi ze? B Y M S. SM I T H : I n ot herci r cumst ance s , I m i ghthave us ed ot her w ords. B Y T H E C O U R T : D o y ou apol ogi ze? B Y M S
. S M IT H : W h at i s ity o u w an t m e to a p o log ize f o r? B Y T H E C O U R T : I s ai d fo r tho se w ords. B Y M S. SM I T H : For t hose w o rds. I n ot herci r cumst ance s , I m i ght hav e used o t her w ords. B Y T H E C O U R T : O k ay . W ell , I th ink there ’s no n ee d to g o fu rt h er. I r e a l l y wan t e d t o l e t y o u o u t o f t h e r e , t h a t c o n f i n e me n t
. I r e a l l y di d. I w as h o p in g y o u ’d h a v e so m e c h a n g e o f h e a rt, b u t I c a n ’t se e it. ¶ 1 7
. A s m e n tio n e d , M iss iss ip p i c a se law is c lea r th a t th is c o u rt w ill c o n d u c t a n a b in iti o
r evi ew foran appe al of a c r i m i nal co n tem p t convi ct i on and det er m i ne “w het heron t he

### 19

r ecor d, t he cont empt or ( s i c) i s gui l t y bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” P re m e a u x v . Sm ith , 569 So. 2d 681, 683- 84 ( M i s s . 1990)
. T he t r ans cr i pt s of bot h hear i ngs on Febr uar y1 6 and th Febr uar y18 l eave no r oom for doubt
. B eca us e t he r ecor d unques t i onabl yr evea l s , bey ond

th

a re a so n a b le d o u b t, th a t S m ith w a s g u iltyo f d ire c t cr im in a l co n tem p t, w e f in d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶18. Find ing n o errori n t he cha ncel l or ’ s j udgm entof di r ectcr i m i nal cont empt ent er ed agai ns tSusa n C
. Sm i t h, w e af fi r m t he j udgm entof t he C hance r yC our tfort he Fi r s tJ udi ci al D is tr ic t o f

C a rr o ll C o u n ty. ¶19. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LER AN D COB B, P . J J . , EA S LE Y, GRAVE S AND DI CK I NS ON , J J . , CO NC UR . DI AZ AN D RA ND OL P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .