Opinion ID: 1658875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Third Contempt Citation

Text: The third instance in which relator was held in contempt was during his questioning of Victor Reese about the habits of Robert Townsell, the prosecution witness who identified relator's client as the assailant. The record contains only the following testimony by Reese leading up to the contempt citation: BY MR. MILKOVICH: (Whereupon, previous direct examination was had by defense counsel.) Q Do you ever have occasion to see passengers driving in that car with the driver? A Well, that's what I just said. There was somebody in there yesterday but like I said I couldn't tell you who it was. Q What about on other occasions, have you seen that car with passengers? A Yeah, I have seen him and his friends, I guess. Q What kind of friends, male or female? MR. COWLES: Objection, this is all irrelevant. What is the point? MR. MILKOVICH: Judge, I am establishing the exact direct fact that he is a pimp. MR. LAYTON: We object to that, Your Honor. MR. COWLES: You just told him not to do that. Mr. Milkovich continues to MR. MILKOVICH: Judge, he lives in the Bottoms. THE COURT: Lets go outside. (Whereupon, a conference was had outside the presence of the jury.) [5] At the bench conference, the judge issued a contempt citation for relator's violation of an earlier order to refrain from editorial comment on objections in front of the jury. The partial transcript, however, does not contain the earlier order, and relator and the judge disagreed during the bench conference concerning the scope of the earlier order. When an attorney has been held in contempt for violation of a court order during a trial, either the record on appeal must contain the precise order alleged to have been violated or the parties must agree on the contents of the order. Relator's conduct in making comments which placed before the jury certain facts which may not be admissible as evidence was clearly improper and reprehensible. Indeed, relator added to the impropriety by making a second comment following the prosecutor's objection. Nevertheless, relator was not cited for contempt because of this independently improper conduct, but for violation of an order not disclosed by the record. The conviction on the third contempt citation must be reversed because of this evidentiary insufficiency.