Court Opinion

ID: 9768352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:57:52.515465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:39.708166
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority in this case in that I do not believe the applicable statutes were followed and I cannot find contemptuous behavior on the part of the petitioner. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-904 (Repl. 1962) states: Whenever any person shall be committed for a contempt under the provisions of this act (§§ 34-901 — 34-906), the substance of his offense shall be set forth in the order, or warrant of commitment. This procedure was not followed by the court in this case. The court order which was entered on the docket sheet stated: Def appeared drinking — intoxilyzer test ordered — Atty Davis in open ct. told def not to take the test.. . . Davis found in contempt — fine 250 and 24 hr in jail — This brief annotation by the judge cannot be held to set out the substance of the offense of contempt by any stretch of the imagination. I feel that the wording of the order “Davis in open ct. told def not to take the test” is not the true situation as reflected by the record. I listened to the tape of the proceedings involving the petitioner and the court, and I could nowhere hear any disrespect in petitioner’s tone or wording to the court. It seems as though the petitioner never even got a change to finish out his objections before the court would interrupt him. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility an attorney has the right and duty to advise his client as to the law. If an attorney advises a client in good faith even though that advice may be incorrect, he should not be held in criminal contempt of the court for doing what he feels is proper under the circumstances. The petitioner stated, "You don’t have to take the test.” This can be interpreted more than one way. Having listened to the tape and the voices and tones thereon, I do not feel that the petitioner ordered his client not to take the test but was merely advising him that he had the right not to take the test. Whether his client actually did have the right to refuse to take the test is not in issue. The issue is whether an attorney can advise a client in good faith as to what he believes the law to be without fear of being thrown in jail. To uphold a contempt citation in this case would, in my opinion, discourage attorneys from attempting to put forth their best effort in the defense of their clients. In any event, an attorney should be warned by the court prior to a finding of contempt and should definitely be afforded an opportunity to defend himself as to the charges. I respectfully dissent.