Title: Hentz v. State
Citation: 496 So. 2d 668
Docket Number: 56831
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 1986

496 So. 2d 668 (1986) Larry Shelton HENTZ v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 56831. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 15, 1986. *669 Jack R. Jones, III, Taylor, Jones, Alexander, Greenlee, Seale &amp; Ryan, Southaven, for appellant. Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by H.M. Ray, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. En Banc. GRIFFIN, Justice, for the Court: This matter is before the Court on a finding of direct contempt, under Mississippi Code Annotated § 9-1-17 (1972), and summary punishment therefor. The appellant appeared as a defense witness in criminal cause No. 4151 in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County on June 27, 1984, to give testimony on behalf of the defendant, John Tailor Gullett, III, who was being tried for perjury. The appellant testified on June 27th, and a formal contempt citation was entered by the court on the following day. He was found to be in contempt on twenty-seven occasions during the course of his testimony for refusing to answer questions after being so ordered by the court. However, he was sentenced on only six, which six the record does not reveal, to thirty days on each for a total sentence of 180 days. The background for this cause would interest authors of murder mystery novels. One James Williamson was killed and/or murdered apparently in Panola County. The record in this cause does not reveal the locus delicti. Participants charged in the capital murder of Williamson were the appellant, Larry Shelton Hentz, Williamson's wife "Cookie", and Owen Lee Harden referred to by the appellant as "Lee". Also participating or at least having guilty knowledge of the activities of the participants was the appellant's brother, Roger. *670 The record here reveals that Harden, the appellant and Roger were incarcerated in several jails over North Mississippi extending from Hernando to Tupelo and Aberdeen, with involuntary visits to the Oxford jail in between. Where they were incarcerated together we are unable to determine from the record. Roger apparently made a deal with the prosecutors and agreed to be a state's witness in the prosecution of the other three. It is the state's theory, supported by evidence in the record, that Cookie planned the death of her husband, that she and the appellant were at least friendly enough to enjoy each other's company in motel rooms, and that she solicited his assistance in the murder of her husband. The appellant contacted Lee to perform the dastardly act. Also to render assistance in driving an automobile, just how this was to assist we do not know, was Roger. Lee came on for trial in DeSoto County several counties in the Circuit District were the site of the various trials. Roger was called by the state apparently to testify concerning the conduct of his confederates in the Williamson murder. Gullett had occupied jail cells with the Hentz brothers, being incarcerated for some purpose other than the Williamson murder, and was offered as a defense witness. Gullett's indictment for perjury is not made a part of the record, but it is apparent that he was indicted because of testimony he gave on behalf of Harden wherein he stated that Roger, when a cellmate, said that he was wholly responsible for the murder of Williamson. The district attorney and the grand jury of DeSoto County apparently were not impressed. In the meantime, the appellant's trial for capital murder came on to be heard in Tate County. During the course of this trial in November, 1983, he pled guilty after a reduction of the charge from capital murder to murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment as a non-habitual offender. On May 14, 1984, he filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or, in the Alternative, Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea", in the Tate County action. A copy of this document was made a part of this record by the defense. As stated, he was called as a witness for Gullett on June 27, 1984. Prior to taking the stand, the court thoroughly instructed appellant as to all of the hazards that appearing as a witness presented, including contempt citation on a question-by-question basis, and appointed the public defender to be with him during the course of his testimony. The court also took a lengthy recess in order to allow a conference between appellant and his counsel. Counsel advised the appellant against testifying but nevertheless he took the stand on Gullett's behalf, and freely and voluntarily told that his brother, Roger, had lied on numerous occasions and, while he did not hear his brother tell Gullett that he, Roger, was responsible for Williamson's death, Roger himself told him that he had informed Gullett that he was the one responsible. Suffice it to say that his testimony on direct related to who killed Williamson. The state believing, as did the trial judge and as does this Court, that the gate had been thrown wide open, asked on cross-examination question after question concerning the appellant's activities in the murder of Williamson, including statements given to investigating officers. Appellant acknowledged understanding the questions but on each he "pled the Fifth", even though advised by the Court that he must answer the question or be in contempt. The appellant refused to answer the following series of questions: Several times during the course of his testimony the trial court did advise the appellant that he was in contempt of court. When he left the stand, which was apparently late in the day inasmuch as the record does show that there was a lunch recess at a previous time, the judge stated that he wanted the defendant "brought back into the court for these contempt matters". He was brought back the next day and, after he and his counsel were afforded opportunity to speak, which they did, punishment was imposed for six incidents. The appellant makes no assertion that the cross examination was on immaterial matters; therefore, this issue is not before us. However, we point out that the questions were all directly related, as admitted by the defendant, to the murder of James Williamson. Appellant attempted to help a co-defendant by testifying that his brother was a liar. He wrote his mother that Gullett had not hurt Roger, inasmuch as Roger had a deal with the district attorney. At various points in the record, it is apparent that he was pleased with the testimony of Gullett inasmuch as it assisted his friend, *672 Harden therefore, bias. Also prior statements in his plea were totally inconsistent with his brother's alleged statement that he alone was responsible for the death of Williamson. All of these matters were proper to be considered by the jury in Gullett's trial in determining whether or not Gullett's statement was a fabrication constituting perjury. Mississippi Code Annotated § 13-1-13 (1972) provides as follows: Requiring the defendant here to answer the questions did not expose him to criminal prosecution for the murder of Williamson. He had already pled guilty. His Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or, in the Alternative, to Withdraw Guilty Plea came months after the term of court expired wherein he had pled and sentence had been entered. The petition must be considered as one under the Post-conviction Collateral Relief Act. It is interesting to note that the petition alleges that a plea bargain agreement was violated because he was charged with grand larceny as a habitual offender in Lafayette County. There is now outstanding an instanter capias on that charge. Assuming the allegation to be true, the state could not prosecute him for the grand larceny and it does not affect the verity of the plea to murder. The Constitutional Fifth Amendment privilege is intended to protect the witness and has no proper application when the witness is not in danger of prosecution or conviction. State v. Milam, 210 Miss. 13, 48 So. 2d 594 (1950), suggestion of error overruled 210 Miss. 26, 49 So. 2d 806 (1951). 9 A.L.R.3d 994 cites United States v. Gernie (1958, CA2 NY) 252 F.2d 664, cert. den. 356 U.S. 968, 78 S. Ct. 1006, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1073, reh. den. 357 U.S. 944, 78 S. Ct. 1383, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1558 in which the following is said: In the supplement of the same text we find the following: We are further of the opinion that when the defendant voluntarily took the stand he waived his right to remain silent and that it was proper to require him to answer questions relevant to the issue involved. In Autry v. State, 230 Miss. 421, 92 So. 2d 856 (1957), the defendant testified in his own behalf, and was then cross examined. After redirect, the defense rested. The state, though, had not rested and in rebuttal recalled the defendant. Objection was made under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution. The Court, in passing on the matter, had the following to say: 92 So. 2d at 861-62. Autry is cited with approval in Chatman v. State, 244 Miss. 659, 145 So. 2d 707 (1962); Sanders v. State, 260 So. 2d 466 (Miss. 1972); Jones v. State, 381 So. 2d 983 (Miss. 1980); Cooley v. State, 391 So. 2d 614 (Miss. 1980). It is apparent that the rule announced in Autry remains the law in this state. Therefore, when the appellant voluntarily took the stand, testifying on the matter in connection with the truthfulness of his brother's statement, all of which was intertwined with the death of James Williamson, he waived his Fifth Amendment right and was subject to cross-examination on all relevant and material matters. Basic fairness dictates that we so hold. In 1951, in Musselwhite v. State, 212 Miss. 526, 54 So. 2d 911, (1951), this Court recognized the unfairness of allowing a witness to tell only his version, and stated: More troublesome is the matter of punishment. Mississippi Code Annotated § 9-1-17 (1972) reads as follows: It is apparent that the trial court found the appellant guilty of direct criminal contempt under the first part of the above quoted section and ordered summary punishment. Even though punishment was not imposed until the day following the conclusion of the trial, we find nothing wrong with this procedure. There was no undue delay. The defendant had been advised of his rights and of the procedure concerning contempt before he took the stand. He was also advised on occasion during the course of his cross examination that he was in contempt. It is held that punishment for contempt may be withheld until the conclusion of the trial. The United States Supreme Court approved this procedure in Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S. Ct. 2697, 41 L. Ed. 2d 897 (1974), in an opinion by Justice White. (The case was reversed on other grounds). Undue delay is not tolerated, but waiting until the conclusion of the trial does not violate the tolerance. Judge Griffith, in Mississippi Chancery Practice § 666 (2d ed. 1940), defined the two classes of contempt provided by the above statute, as follows: Judge Robertson reiterated the same rule as recently as February of this year, in Cook v. State, 483 So. 2d 371 (Miss. 1986): Cook at 374. The appellant, by refusing to answer, placed himself in contempt of court. However, the judgment before us is not sufficiently clear and explicit to warrant us in affirming, reversing, annulling or modifying it. Ex Parte Redmond, 156 Miss. 582, 126 So. 485 (1930). The judge simply stated that he found the defendant in contempt twenty-seven times for refusing to answer questions, and punished him for six acts. We do not know which six. While the proceeding is a summary one and the judge may act upon that which he personally knows is direct contempt, the judgment of conviction should contain material facts known to the court constituting the contempt. In rendering the judgment and making up the record, the causes for such contempt should be separately stated so as to constitute res adjudicata. Redmond, supra. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this case should be remanded so that the record of the judgment of contempt may be fully developed. This was the procedure in Redmond, supra. In doing so, we remind the lower court, as it is apparently aware, that any sentence totaling more than six months, even though they be for separate citations, can not be imposed absent a jury trial. Taylor v. Hayes, supra. CONVICTION AFFIRMED. REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORD WITH THIS OPINION. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and ANDERSON, J., concur. PRATHER, DAN M. LEE, ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., dissent. PRATHER, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent to that portion of the court's majority opinion regarding the defendant's assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination. As a witness Hentz was entitled to assert this constitutional right. The law on this proposition is well established. Article 3, Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused ... shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself." Likewise, the United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment, provides that "[n]o person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself... ." *676 Both constitutional provisions guarantee the privilege against self-incrimination to a witness, as well as an accused. Haralson v. State, 314 So. 2d 722 (Miss. 1975). Additionally, Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-13 (1972) guarantees that a witness shall not be required to answer a question where "the answer would expose him to criminal prosecution or penalty." An accused or witness may waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination when he voluntarily takes the stand and testifies on the merits of the case. Autry v. State, 230 Miss. 421, 92 So. 2d 856 (1957). A waiver is made unless the privilege is claimed. State v. Myers, 244 Miss. 778, 146 So. 2d 334 (1962). The privilege also extends to any civil or criminal proceeding, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. Ct. 316, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1973). This appeal addresses two questions about the privilege against self-incrimination: (1) Was the defense witness entitled to claim the privilege against questions regarding details of a crime to which he pled guilty; and (2) If he was entitled to claim the privilege under those circumstances, did this witness waive the privilege by answering some of the questions. The record here reveals that Larry Hentz pled guilty after plea bargain, to the murder of James Williamson. Thereafter, Larry Hentz filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or in the alternative, a motion to withdraw his guilty plea alleging the state violated the agreement to dismiss a larceny charge against him upon his plea of guilty to murder. The petition to set aside his guilty plea was pending at the time Hentz testified as a defense witness in the Gullett trial. As a witness Hentz testified to the fact that he was convicted for Williamson's murder, but he invoked the Fifth Amendments to questions addressed to the details of the crime from which he was attempting to withdraw his guilty plea. (See Exhibit A attached) Appellant argues that he has a constitutional right to protect himself from self-incrimination since he may stand trial for capital murder in the event the court allows him to withdraw his former guilty plea. The majority opinion today holds that a constitutional privilege afforded by the Fifth Amendment has no proper application when the witness is not in danger of prosecution after his actual conviction. Citing State v. Milam, 210 Mill. 13, 48 So. 2d 594, Suggestion of Error Overruled, 210 Miss. 26, 49 So. 2d 806 (1950). I respectfully disagree. The privilege should apply where, as here, the witness is challenging his guilty plea upon which the conviction is based. Hentz's Fifth Amendment rights were valid and outstanding; he could exercise them and refuse to testify based upon this constitutional guarantee. This position has been taken by other courts. In King v. State, 353 So. 2d 180 (Fla.Dist.Ct. 1977), Dale King was adjudged guilty of direct criminal contempt for refusing to testify as a prosecution witness in the trial of a co-defendant after testifying in his own trial. The Court held: Additionally, the witness Hentz was advised by his attorney that "there were possibly cases pending against him, or may be pending against him in the future, by way *677 of possible pleas being set aside and so forth." With such warning to the witness, his privilege should be more guarded. Ultimately the determination of what is incriminating has to rest with the witness, not the judge. Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 37 S. Ct. 621, 61 L. Ed. 1198 (1917). The general law on this point is discussed in 81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses § 52. I submit that Hentz was entitled to assert his privilege against self-incrimination under these facts. The remaining question addresses whether Hentz waived his privilege by answering some questions directed toward the details of the crime. In my view the record does not show any waiver. The majority opinion recites some questions of the prosecutor. Attached to this dissenting opinion as Exhibit A are other questions quoted from this record. Clearly a witness may waive his privilege as indicated in Musselwhite v. State, 212 Miss. 526, 539, 54 So. 2d 911, 915 (1951), wherein this Court stated in dicta: However, this record does not reflect a waiver. For these reasons, I would reverse and render this conviction and discharge the defendant. DAN M. LEE, ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., join this dissent. On cross-examination, the following question was asked: The prosecution then questioned Hentz as to his plea of guilty to the murder of Williamson. Hentz testified: "It was plead guilty or get the gas chamber." Hentz stated, "I pled guilty to that charge to keep from going to the gas chamber... . I definitely wasn't guilty." (R. 47) Appellant was then questioned with respect to his previous plea of guilty for the murder of James Williamson as follows: The State then asked the following series of questions, each of which Appellant acknowledged *680 that he understood and to each of which he "plead the Fifth" (R. 57-61): Upon being asked whether Roger Lynn was "solely responsible for the murder of James Williamson," appellant responded, "I don't really want to get into that." (R. 83). Appellant was then questioned and responded as follows: