Case Name: In re JEFFERSON
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 2007-03-30
Citations: 284 Ga. App. 877
Docket Number: A06A2253
Parties: In re JEFFERSON.
Judges: Johnson, P. J., Blackburn, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. Barnes, C. J., Miller and Bernes, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 284
Pages: 877–885

Head Matter:
A06A2253.
In re JEFFERSON.
(645 SE2d 349)

Opinion:
ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.
Sherri Jefferson appeals from a juvenile court's finding that she was in contempt of court in the course of an appearance at a delinquency hearing. We find no error and affirm.
On appeal of a criminal contempt conviction the appropriate standard of appellate review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) In re Waitz, 255 Ga. App. 841, 842 (567 SE2d 87) (2002).
So viewed, the record shows that at the time of the alleged contempt, Jefferson was an assistant public defender who was assigned to represent juvenile defendants in the Juvenile Court of Glynn County. The alleged improper statements made by Jefferson occurred during a delinquency hearing in which she represented the minor child B. W. Among other offenses, B. W. was charged as a party to the crime of aggravated battery based on a shooting that occurred outside of an acquaintance's home.
During the delinquency hearing, the prosecution sought to prove that B. W. had supplied the handgun used in the shooting and had encouraged the shooter to fire the handgun at the victim. As part of her examination of the law enforcement officer who had investigated the shooting, Jefferson attempted to question the officer about certain statements made to him by the alleged shooter, who had not yet testified. The prosecution objected on hearsay grounds, and the juvenile court sustained the objection. The juvenile court went on to suggest that in order to avoid the hearsay problem, Jefferson should first call the alleged shooter to the stand and question him about the statement, and then recall the investigating officer and question him about any inconsistencies in the shooter's statement. In response, Jefferson requested that she instead be permitted to continue questioning the officer about the shooter's statement and then call the shooter himself, rather than vice versa. When the juvenile court said that he would not allow her to proceed in that manner, Jefferson objected by stating, "[T]hat's a gross interference with the way that I can represent my client, Your Honor."
Later during the examination, the officer testified that B. W. had told the shooter to fire the handgun and had "egged it on." Jefferson then asked, "Can you show me in the shooter's statement where he told you that [B. W] said shoot him?" The officer responded that "[i]t's not in the shooter's statement." When Jefferson started to follow up on the officer's response, the prosecution objected on hearsay grounds to any testimony about what the shooter said or did not say to the officer. The juvenile court then ruled that he would give no probative value to any hearsay contained in the officer's testimony; after further discussion, the court also held that the police officer's report was inadmissible. The juvenile court then reiterated its ruling: "I've already overruled your proffer of [the police officer's] report and also your efforts to get [the officer] to testify about his conversation with [the shooter]." When Jefferson continued to resist, the court commented that "[w]hat you're doing now is making a closing argument," and said that it "had heard enough on this issue." Jefferson then protested: "I just find the Court is biased in its view. You say that you're not prejudging the case but it seems to me like you've made up your mind and any and everything that I do to effectively defend my client I'm being rebutted."
At the conclusion of the delinquency hearing, the juvenile court served a notice of contempt and show cause order alleging eight instances of contempt committed by Jefferson, including her "gross interference" and "biased" statements. The presiding judge then recused himself so that another judge could preside over the contempt proceedings. After a new judge from the juvenile court had been appointed, a hearing was held on the show cause order in which Jefferson testified. Following the hearing, the juvenile court issued an order finding Jefferson not guilty of six of the eight instances of alleged contempt. However, the juvenile court found that Jefferson's "gross interference" and "biased" statements constituted contemptuous conduct. On May 1, 2006, and citing OCGA§ 15-11-5, the juvenile court sentenced Jefferson to ten days incarceration for the first statement and twenty days incarceration for the second statement without specifying whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively, and also granted "a supersedeas of this Order pending the resolution of any appeal hereof." One week later, the juvenile court amended its order to provide that the sentences would run consecutively, and again granted supersedeas.
1. As a preliminary matter, we reject Jefferson's contention that the juvenile court's jurisdiction does not extend to matters of criminal contempt or to the imposition of sentences in such cases. As a constitutional court, the juvenile court was authorized both to adjudicate the matter and to impose punishment. See Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. Ill, Par. I (jurisdiction of juvenile court is "as... provided by law"); OCGA § 15-11-5 (a) (a juvenile court "may punish a person for contempt of court for willfully disobeying an order of the court or for obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the court"); In re Burton, 271 Ga. 491, 493 (2) (521 SE2d 568) (1999) (juvenile court has jurisdiction to issue contempt orders against counsel appearing before it); In re Liles, 278 Ga. App. 496 (629 SE2d 492) (2006) (affirming juvenile court's adjudication of contempt arising from violation of its protective order).
2. The crux of this appeal is Jefferson's contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction.
As the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged, the Georgia courts have reserved to themselves the common law power to describe criminal contempt in this state, rejecting legislative efforts to limit that power, and construing state constitutional provisions so as to preserve it. See Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375, 386 (82 SC 1364, 8 LE2d 569) (1962), citing Atlanta Newspapers v. State of Ga., 216 Ga. 399 (116 SE2d 580) (1960), and Bradley v. State, 111 Ga. 168, 171-172 (36 SE 630) (1900) (under the Georgia constitution, the Georgia legislature can limit the punishment for, but not the definition of, criminal contempt). "The test applied to determine whether a statement is contemptuous is whether [the statement represents] a clear and present danger to [the] orderly administration of justice." Garland v. State, 253 Ga. 789, 790 (2) (325 SE2d 131) (1985).
Jefferson accused the judge of (a) "gross interference" with her efforts to represent her client and (b) being "biased" and prejudiced against her client.
(a) "A judge's authority to maintain decorum in his courtroom does not depend upon the correctness of his rulings. No matter how unsound [ ] or erroneous one may consider them to be, they afford no justification or excuse for contempt of the court." White v. State of Ga., 218 Ga. 290, 294 (3) (b) (127 SE2d 668) (1962). "[TJakinginto account the setting in which the statement is made," Garland, supra, 253 Ga. at 791 (2), we note that Jefferson made her claim of "gross interference" in the face of the juvenile court's repeated adverse rulings. Such a claim not only mistakes the "orderly administration of justice" for its opposite, but openly accuses the court of perpetrating misrule. The evidence sufficed to sustain Jefferson's conviction for criminal contempt. See White, supra, 218 Ga. at 292-293, 294 (3) (b) (counsel's comments, including that if he erred "in the slightest," the trial court would "give [him] the works," amounted to criminal contempt).
(b) The record shows that the trial court had definitively informed counsel that its consideration of the matter was closed when counsel attacked the trial court at the core of its function as an impartial arbiter of justice. Indeed, the judge hearing the contempt matter found Jefferson's second statement at issue to be "the absolute zenith of contempt a trial participant can express for a Court."
If and when counsel believes that a trial court is biased against her client, she should move for recusal, thus guaranteeing herself, her client, and the trial court all the safeguards which accompany such a motion, including the designation of a new judge to hear the matter. Compare In re McLarty, 152 Ga. App. 399, 400-401 (2) (263 SE2d 194) (1979) (motion to recuse made with "some evidence in support of it" is not contemptuous). It is within a trial court's power to forbid a disgruntled lawyer from impugning the integrity of a court at the moment the inclination strikes her, and to hold her accountable, after due process, when such an attack occurs. As Judge Pope wrote in Smith v. Adams, 161 Ga. App. 820, 821 (3) (288 SE2d 775) (1982):
Words which bring the court into disrespect, which offend[ ] its dignity or affront[ ] its majesty, or challenge[ ] its authority, constitute contempt. A solicitor is an officer of the court and whenever he impedes or obstructs the administration of justice by the use of contemptuous words he may be properly punished.
The evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding. Id. (counsel's assertion that trial court "can't tell [the law]" authorized a finding of contempt); see also In re McLarty, 150 Ga. App. 395, 396 (2) (258 SE2d 10) (1979) (counsel who informed trial court immediately after adverse ruling that "maybe the Court of Appeals will understand the law" is guilty of contempt).
3. Finally, Jefferson attacks the original sentence as cruel and unusual punishment, and also asserts that the juvenile court lacked the power to amend its May 1 order after its grant of supersedeas in that same order. We reject these contentions.
A juvenile court has the discretion to grant supersedeas in contempt cases arising from conduct in the presence of the court during the progress of a proceeding. See OCGA § 15-11-3 (appeals from final judgments of a juvenile court "shall be taken... in the same manner as appeals from the superior court"). The trial court's discretionary grant of supersedeas in its original order of May 1 did not result in a divestment of its jurisdiction; that event occurred only when Jefferson filed a notice of appeal. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a); Couch v. United Paperworkers Intl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997) (proper and timely filing of notice of appeal is "an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court").
Nor did the juvenile court exceed its powers when it clarified its original order to specify that the two sentences of twenty days and ten days for each contemptuous act were to run consecutively, since the eventual sentence imposed did not exceed the applicable statutory limits. See OCGA § 15-6-8 (5) (trial court has the power to "punish contempt by fines not exceeding $500.00 and by imprisonment not exceeding 20 days"); Gay v. Gay, 268 Ga. 106 (1) (485 SE2d 187) (1997) (penalties provided in OCGA § 15-6-8 (5) are applicable to each separate act found by the trial court to be contemptuous); Johnson v. State, 258 Ga. App. 33, 36 (572 SE2d 669) (2002) (sentence of three consecutive twenty-day sentences for three instances of contemptuous behavior was supported by the evidence).
The juvenile court was divested of jurisdiction in this case only when Jefferson timely filed her notice of appeal on June 5, within 30 days of the May 8 amended order. See Nodvin v. West, 197 Ga. App. 92 (397 SE2d 581) (1990) (trial court's correction of a certified final judgment was itself a directly appealable final order).
Judgment affirmed.
Johnson, P. J., Blackburn, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur. Barnes, C. J., Miller and Bernes, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.