Gillen v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 1940 No. Civ. No. 11082Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the municipal court acted within its jurisdiction in adjudging the petitioner guilty of direct contempt for his remarks, as the trial court had the authority to determine whether the language used was contemptuous under the circumstances.

Issues

Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in adjudging the petitioner guilty of direct contempt.
Whether the language used by the petitioner was contemptuous as a matter of law.
Whether the formal written order, rather than the initial oral statement from the bench, constituted the valid judgment of contempt.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It also had jurisdiction to determine what was or was not contemptuous language.”

“Unless we can say, as a matter of law, that said language was susceptible of that construction only, for which the petitioner now contends, we may not say the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction.”

“To constitute a judgment of contempt it was necessary that the court should make an order reciting the facts.”

STURTEVANT, J. The petitioner, a deputy district attorney, while attending the preliminary hearings set in the defendant court was adjudged guilty of contempt of court. He applied for and was granted a writ of review. That proceeding was heard in the superior court. From the judgment rendered in the latter court the petitioner appealed and has brought up typewritten transcripts.

On the 10th day of March, 1938, Honorable Twain Michel-sen was the duly elected, qualified and acting judge of Department Ten of the Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco. On that date there had just been concluded certain criminal proceedings against Peter McDonough and Thomas McDonough. On that date there were also pending in said court other criminal proceedings involving the same defendants, which were ready for further proceedings. The petitioner was present as the representative of the office of the district attorney. Charles PI. Brennan, Esq., an attorney at law, was present representing the defendants. Mr. Brennan asked an immediate hearing. Thereupon the following occurred:

“Mr. Brennan: There are just two defendants that are charged with misdemeanors, and I am informed by Mr. Burke they are Peter McDonough and Thomas McDonough, and four charges against each. We will ask an immediate hearing on those charges, and we are ready to proceed to trial at what-' ever time will be convenient for the Court.

“The Court: What is your pleasure?

“Mr. Brennan: I don’t know what the present mind of the District Attorney is.

“Mr. Gillen: My mind would be to file an affidavit of prejudice at once.

“Mr. Brennan: This is not the time to do that. If you are talking for publicity purposes, I am going to talk myself. You have been trying your cases in the Press for two years, and you have been vilifying every person who opposed you. You have been licked and you will be licked, every time you start.

“Mr. Gillen: You won before you started.

“The Court: For that remark, I adjudge you guilty of contempt of court, and fine you $50. You are not going to impugn the integrity of this Court.

“Mr. Gillen: I expected that.”

[430]Two continuances were had. On March 15, 1938, the trial court prepared and signed a formal order. After certain recitals said order ended with paragraphs worded as follows:

Gillen v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief