Opinion ID: 1960935
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Second Count of Contempt: Direct or Constructive?

Text: We hold, however, that the second count of contempt was not a direct contempt and that it should have been tried as a constructive contempt on a rule to show cause as provided by La.C.Cr.P. art. 24. (A direct contempt, distinguishably, is punishable summarily and without trial, except to afford the contemnor the opportunity to be heard orally by way of defense or mitigation. Article 22.) An attorney's failure to appear in court after a recess is not one of the acts mentioned in the list of direct contempts contained in article 21. Although this is an illustrative rather than an exclusive listing, this direct-contempt article does expressly include the following acts: (1) Contumacious failure, after notice, to appear for arraignment or trial on the day fixed therefor; (2) Contumacious failure to comply with a subpoena or summons to appear in court, proof of service of which appears of record . . . These explicit inclusions in the illustrative listing tend to exclude certain other acts by implication. For instance, the witness who failed to comply with a subpoena or summons, proof of service of which did not appear of record, would be in a strong position to argue that the legislature intended to exclude this act from the category of direct contempts. Likewise, inclusion of the above-quoted provisions that seem intended to apply to witnesses and defendants rather than counsel, as well as article 21(9) (making it a direct contempt for a member of a jury to fail to attend court), together with the special penalty provisions for attorneys contained in article 25 (see Part III of this opinion), tend to exclude (as a direct contempt) by implication an attorney's failure to appear in court after a recess. We further note that, in this case, the court order that the attorney defied was not one of which proof of service appeared in the record. Moreover, the list of constructive contempts in article 23 includes among others the following acts: (1) Willful neglect or violation of duty by a clerk, sheriff, or other person elected, appointed or employed to assist the court in the administration of justice; (2) Wilful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ or process of court . . . . (Italics ours.) Thus, a violation of an order or mandate of the court, proof of service of which did not appear in the record, by an attorneya person employed to assist the court in the administration of justiceis clearly contemplated as a constructive contempt. This inclusion as a constructive contempt gives added weight to its implied exclusion as a direct contempt in the illustrative listing of the latter. In accordance with the general rule of strict construction of criminal statutes, see, e.g., La.R.S. 14:3, it has been suggested that where an act might be regarded as either a direct or a constructive contempt, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the latter. In re Holmes, 355 So.2d 677, 678 (Miss. 1978); Fisher v. State, 248 So.2d 479 (Fla.1971). The principal effect of finding that the present conduct was a constructive rather than a direct contempt is that it cannot be tried summarily. La.C.Cr.P. art. 24 provides that a person cited for constructive contempt shall be tried by the judge on a rule to show cause that expressly alleges the facts constituting the contempt. A certified copy of the motion and of the rule to show cause must be served on defendant, and he must be allowed forty-eight hours to secure counsel and prepare his defense. These procedural safeguards are thought not necessary where all the facts constituting a direct contempt, (including evidence of the contemnor's intention and usually of any mitigating circumstances), are within the knowledge of the court because all the facts constituting the contempt have taken place in view of the court. The case of the absence of an attorney, where the intention might be other than contumacious and where a wide range of defenses involving out-of-court circumstances might be presented, is much more susceptible of the article 24 constructive-contempt procedure than of the summary direct-contempt procedure. We note that the constructive-contempt procedure is itself speedier and less cumbersome than an ordinary trial of a criminal offense, but it does provide due process safeguards which are necessary in the adjudication of an offense more complicated than simple aggressive or obnoxious behavior in open court. The overwhelming majority of cases in other jurisdictions that have considered the question have held that the absence of an attorney, without more, is a constructive rather than a direct contempt. See, e.g., Taylor v. District Court, 434 P.2d 679 (Alaska 1967); Fisher v. State, 248 So.2d 479 (Fla.1971); Peltier v. Peltier, 388 A.2d 22 (R.I.1978) and authorities cited therein at 23; State ex rel. Wendt v. Journey, 492 S.W.2d 861 (Mo.App.1973); Annotation, 97 A.L.R.2d 431, 459-64 (1964) and authorities cited therein. The few cases to the contrary have generally relied on the legal fiction that where an attorney's actions disrupt court proceedings he is present in court for that purpose. See, e.g., Rosenstock v. Municipal Court, 61 Cal.App.3d 1, 132 Cal.Rptr. 59 (1976): Annotation, 97 A.L.R.2d 431, 457-69 (1964). This fiction is unavailable to us, not only because of the principle of strict construction of criminal statutes, but also because the Louisiana direct contempt provision, article 21, requires that an act of which [the judge] has personal knowledge must also be committed in the immediate view and presence of the court in order to be a direct contempt. The fact that the absence and resulting disruption are immediately apparent to the court fulfills only one of the two prongs of the test (immediate view and in the presence of the court) for this type of direct contempt, under the Louisiana statutory definition. Accordingly, we must set aside the conviction on the second contempt, and remand this contempt proceeding to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. [2]