Court Opinion

ID: 9776514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:38:18.429646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:39.354297
License: Public Domain

CARR, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion and agree that this contempt punishment received as a result of the violation of this civil injunction between these private litigants will not support a jeopardy plea to a criminal prosecution brought by the State under the facts of this case.
I do so with the added reasons that, in my view, the violation of this civil injunction between these private litigants is not an “offense” within the intended meaning of the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions and that the contempt punishment for violation of this civil injunction between these private litigants is not the result of any second prosecutions brought by the State.
In addition, I find Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975) distinguishable from the present case because in the Menna case, it appears that both the contempt of court proceedings and the later prosecution proceedings1 were initiated by the State unlike the facts of the present case.

. Both proceedings in Menna were a result of Menna's original refusal to answer questions before the grand jury.