Title: People v. Denson
Citation: 322 N.E.2d 464, 59 Ill. 2d 546
Docket Number: 46453
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: January 21, 1975

59 Ill. 2d 546 (1975)
322 N.E.2d 464
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee,
v.
BARBARA DENSON, Appellant.
No. 46453.

Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed January 21, 1975.
*547 Sam Adam, Edward M. Genson, James J. Cutrone, and Alan D. Blumenthal, all of Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Bernard Carey, State's Attorney, of Chicago (James B. Zagel and Jayne A. Carr, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, and Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Thomas D. Rafter, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court:
*548 This case originated in the circuit court of Cook County and involves a sentence of 6 months for contempt. The appellate court affirmed the sentence (16 Ill. App.3d 230), and we granted leave to appeal. Facts essential to the decision of this case are related in the appellate opinion, and we here adopt that statement of facts.
The appellant was called to testify as a witness for the State in the murder trial of Curtis Berry. Although not legally married, she had lived with him as his wife for a number of years, and had given incriminating testimony against him before the grand jury, the result of which was Berry's indictment for murder. The appellant was called as a witness at the trial, was then made a court's witness, and eventually was granted immunity under article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, pars. 106-1, 106-2), which provided:
She still refused to testify, claiming that the immunity granted was not as broad as her fifth amendment rights; however, the statute in question was so construed in People v. Walker (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 585, where, without citing authority, the People suggested that immunity is not to be extended to prior perjury, and there the court, at page 590, stated: "The short answer to the People's suggestion, of course, is that the statute contains no exception as to prior perjury, and that such an exception would render it invalid." And, at page 591, stated: "A charge of perjury cannot, therefore, be predicated upon *549 the falsity of those statements. The situation is not altered by section 32-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 * * *. In the words of the immunity statute, the offense of perjury by inconsistent statements was shown `in whole or part' by the testimony that he gave under the statutory grant of immunity."
Ordinarily, the fact that the scope of immunity was sufficient would be the conclusive answer to the claim that the contempt holding was proper. The circumstances of the case at bar are unique, however, and resort should be had to the record. The initial confusion began during the trial of Curtis Berry when on May 25, 1971, Miss Denson was called as a witness by the State and requested to confer with her attorney, Sam Adam, before answering any questions. The court directed her to answer the prosecutor's questions, noting that she had not claimed "certain protections." She proceeded to answer the questions put to her, whereupon the prosecutor claimed that she was answering in a manner which indicated she would be a hostile witness and asked that she be made a court's witness so that he might cross-examine her. A hearing was held outside of the presence of the jury, and the judge ruled that she should be called as a court's witness.
After the noon recess, Miss Denson returned with her attorney, and was given an opportunity to confer with him. Attorney Adam then made the following representation to the court:
When Adam pointed out that Miss Denson had not been represented by counsel when she testified before the grand jury the prosecutor replied:
Eventually it was established that Miss Denson was going to refuse to answer any questions on the basis that to do so would violate her rights under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, and the State agreed to provide her with immunity from prosecution.
Upon the People's motion, the trial judge then entered an order of immunity under article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 106-1 et seq.). The original order of immunity submitted by the People read as follows:
Before the judge signed the proposed order quoted above, counsel for Miss Denson noted its broad reference to the Illinois perjury statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 32-2) and in an ensuing colloquy, the court, with the concurrence of Miss Denson's counsel and the assistant State's Attorney entered the following amended order:
The trial judge, with the agreement of the assistant State's Attorney, made it clear, before entering this amended order, that the immunity being conferred had the full breadth of that granted by article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
After consulting with her attorney following entry of the immunity order, Miss Denson again refused to testify. The trial judge then found Miss Denson in contempt of court and entered the following order:
Thereafter the contemnor again appeared in court and stated she would not testify, and the court ruled as follows:
The basic problem was that the court and the attorneys could not agree on what testimony was to be included in the order, i.e., what constituted "such testimony."
It is readily apparent that the prosecutor did not believe that Miss Denson had been granted immunity from the perjury, if any, which she had previously committed before the grand jury. It is less clear whether or not the prosecutor thought that he would be able to use the testimony given under immunity to establish that prior perjury. It is fair to assume that the prosecutor did intend to so use the testimony if it was inconsistent with the grand jury testimony or he would have agreed to Adam's request that the State agree not to use the grand jury testimony vis-a-vis the immunity testimony for the purpose of showing inconsistent statements. Section 32-2(a)(b) of the Criminal Code in force at that time (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 32-2(a)(b)) provided, in pertinent part:
The fear of Miss Denson and her attorney was that although the immune testimony could not, in and of itself, support a conviction for perjury, if it could be used to show inconsistencies with the grand jury testimony, the result would be for the testimony to incriminate her nevertheless. People v. Walker, 28 Ill. 2d 585, established that such testimony given under immunity could not be used for that purpose. However, it is clear that neither Adam, Levinson, nor the Judge referred to the Walker holding in reference to this case. The question then becomes, in light of the confusion with reference to the law by the attorneys and the court, did Miss Denson's refusal to answer amount to contumacious conduct.
Section 106-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 106-3) provided:
In the case of Anderson v. Macek (1932), 350 Ill. 135, 138, the court noted: "Whether a direct contempt has been committed depends upon the act and not upon the alleged intention of the offending party. [Citation.] Nor is it a defense that defendants in error sought legal advice and acted, in part at least, upon it. The advice of attorneys is never a justification for contempt. People v. McWeeney, 259 Ill. 161."
In light of People v. Walker, 28 Ill. 2d 585, and the foregoing cases, we are constrained to hold that Miss Denson was, in fact, in contempt of court for failure to obey the order to testify under the grant of immunity as made. This does not, however, preclude the court from considering the reasons behind the allegedly contumacious conduct when passing sentence for that conduct.
In determining whether the sentence imposed was proper we must consider the argument that the contempt *554 order was for civil contempt, rather than criminal contempt, and that, therefore, the contemnor could not be held in custody after the end of the trial in question, for then it would be too late for the contemnor to purge herself. In People v. Redlich (1949), 402 Ill. 270, 277-278, the court stated:
In People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Barasch (1961), 21 Ill. 2d 407, 409-410, the court stated:
And at pages 410 and 411, the court further stated:
Under existing Illinois case law and the record in this case, it is clear that at first an order finding only civil contempt was entered, and this was later replaced with an order for criminal contempt for past failure to answer questions as ordered, with the opportunity to lessen the sentence to time served if the contempt was purged.
*556 Miss Denson argues, however, that the case of Shillitani v. United States (1966), 384 U.S. 364, 16 L. Ed. 2d 622, 86 S. Ct. 1531, precludes courts from using such contempt orders which are essentially dual in nature. That case involved a disagreement as to whether a contempt order was criminal or civil in nature. The Supreme Court differed with the district and circuit courts and found that the order was civil in nature because it was for the purpose of coercing testimony and held that the contemnor could not be imprisoned beyond the time in which the contempt could be purged. The test stated by the court is, "what does the court primarily seek to accomplish by imposing sentence?" (384 U.S. 364, 370, 16 L. Ed. 2d 622, 627.) Here it is clear that the judge had two separate and distinct purposes in mind. One, of course, was the desire to compel the witness to testify. The other was to punish the contemnor for refusing to do what she had been ordered to do, i.e., answer certain questions put to her by the prosecutor under a grant of immunity. The court obviously felt that a criminal sanction was warranted, and such a conclusion is supported by the record. People v. Walker (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 585.
The question then becomes, must the court give up any occasion to use its contempt powers to compel the witness to testify in order to enter a valid order of criminal contempt? We do not deem Shillitani to so hold. That case centered on a specific finding that the contempt order was for one purpose or the other on the facts. The case at bar more properly falls into the void that existed in the majority opinion, as pointed out by Justice Harlan in his dissent when he said: "What the Court fails to do is to give any reason in policy, precedent, statute law, or the Constitution for its unspoken premise that a sentencing judge cannot combine two purposes into a single sentence of the type here imposed." (384 U.S. 364, 383, 16 L. Ed. 2d 622, 636.) We do not read the majority opinion quite as broadly as did Mr. Justice Harlan, and hold that the use *557 of valid dual-purpose contempt orders was not precluded by the majority opinion in Shillitani, and, for the policy considerations stated above, we find that the contempt order in this case was a valid dual-purpose order.
The only remaining question is whether the sentence imposed in this case is excessive. Under the circumstances of the case we hold that it is not, and the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.