Reymert v. Smith (1907) · DecisionDepot

Reymert v. Smith

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Apr 12, 1907 No. Civ. No. 384.Published

Before: Taggart

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to convict the petitioner of contempt because the petitioner was not served with a formal charge, nor given an opportunity to answer or plead to the accusation.

Issues

Whether the superior court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner in a contempt proceeding without service of a formal charge or an opportunity to answer.
Whether a contempt proceeding requires the same procedural steps as an ordinary criminal case when the contempt occurs outside the presence of the court.

Disposition. annulled and petitioner discharged

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is apparent that the superior court failed to acquire jurisdiction of the person of the petitioner.”

“The conviction of a citizen of a criminal offense without service on him of a formal statement of the charge against him and an opportunity to plead and answer such charge would be an anomaly in the law of criminal procedure.”

Synopsis

WRIT OF REVIEW to set aside proceedings upon commitment for contempt by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. B. N. Smith, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

TAGGART, J.

Application for review of proceedings upon commitment for contempt by superior court of Los Angeles county.

Judgment was rendered by said superior court on March 16, 1907, adjudging that petitioner pay a fine of $200, and in case such fine be not paid, that he be confined’in the county jail of said county until the fine be satisfied at the rate of one day’s imprisonment for each two dollars of fine. The fine not being paid, the defendant was committed to the custody of the sheriff of said county.

The original minute entry of the judgment made on the day of its rendition contained nothing to show of what the alleged contempt consisted; but subsequent to the issuance of the order of this court directing that the record of the proceedings in said matter be certified up to this court, and on the tenth day of April, 1907, an order was entered in the minutes of said superior court, stating that the judgment rendered by the superior court on March 16, 1907, “was not properly written out in the judgment record of this court,” and ordering that the judgment entered be amended to conform to the judgment rendered. The latter order finds the allegations of the affidavits of certain persons (naming them) to be true and adjudges petitioner guilty of contempt for procuring false and perjured testimony.

There is nothing in the record brought up to show that the petitioner was served with any notice or order to show cause that indicated the character of the charge of contempt which the petitioner was expected to answer. It does not even appear that he was served with a copy of the affidavits upon which the proceeding was predicated. No answer of petitioner appears in the record and it does not appear that he was given an opportunity to answer. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1217.) The only instrument of any kind presented on his behalf was a motion to set aside the citation upon the ground that there was no proper complaint or information upon which to base it. This motion was overruled and the

[382]

court proceeded to hear the matter without any formal statement showing the charge that was made against the petitioner, and without any answer or plea being filed or entered or any issue of fact joined.

Contempt of court is a specific criminal offense

Reymert v. Smith

AI Brief

Synopsis

TAGGART, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief