Court Opinion

ID: 9721367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:57:24.154733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:25.217550
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT, specially concurring: I concur in the result and agree with the majority analysis, but have additional comment on the use of contempt. A scholarly review of the contempt power is not necessary. This power should be used cautiously and to some purpose. In my view, this defendant had no obligation to answer the trial court’s questions. The court had every right to ask the questions, and defendant may suffer certain consequences if he fails to answer, but contempt for refusal to answer is not one of those consequences. Defendant did not testify at his sentencing hearing nor exercise his right of allocution. If he responds to the trial court’s questions, and is disrespectful, then contempt might be appropriate. If he responds and is evasive, inconsistent, or uncooperative, the court might well consider his attitude as one lacking in remorse or honesty. The court has the obligation to seek relevant information to assist in sentencing. It has both the power and the flexibility it needs to acquire that information and make informed sentencing decisions. It does not need, nor does it have, the power to command a citizen to answer questions in these circumstances. A defendant who refuses to answer appropriate questions in these circumstances runs the risk his refusal will be considered by the court in assessing rehabilitative potential for both probation consideration and the type and length of sentence to be imposed. That is defendant’s choice. If defendant has a legitimate fifth amendment claim then the refusal to answer should not be considered in any way. The use of the contempt power in these circumstances serves no purpose. It is both unnecessary and in error.