224 So. 3d 76
Miss.2017Background
- Hinds County Judge Weill reassigned 55 indigent defendants from the Public Defender’s Office to private appointed counsel; this Court’s en banc order later allowed defendants to choose between staying with appointed counsel or returning to the Public Defender.
- Cameron Travelsted elected to stay with appointed counsel Randall Harris; the HCPDO informed the court and Harris told the judge he was prepared for trial set July 13, 2015.
- On July 10, 2015, Harris filed to withdraw, arguing the Board of Supervisors would not pay him if Travelsted stayed with appointed counsel; the judge heard the motion the morning of trial and denied it.
- After denial, Harris told the judge in open court he believed the judge was wrong and that he refused to participate in the trial; the trial could not proceed and was continued.
- Judge Weill found Harris guilty of direct criminal contempt, ordered a $100 fine and a $1,200 assessment for the cost of the jury venire; Harris appealed, raising due process, capacity to represent, and challenge to the jury-cost assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (State/Judge) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt finding violated due process | Harris: He lacked notice of charges/sentence and judge should have recused; procedural protections required | Court: This was direct contempt committed in judge’s presence so immediate punishment and hearing were permitted | Affirmed: No due process violation; direct contempt allows on‑the‑spot sanction |
| Whether Harris lacked legal capacity to represent Travelsted | Harris: Client’s change of mind and ethical rules meant he no longer had authority to represent and thus refusal was justified | Court: Argument waived below; Rules of Professional Conduct require continuing representation when tribunal orders continuation | Affirmed: No legal capacity excuse; counsel had to obey court order |
| Whether URCCC 3.13 authorized $1,200 jury venire assessment | Harris: Rule applies only to civil cases and venire wasn’t wasted (used elsewhere) | Court: Rule applies to attorneys failing to try a case generally, including criminal trials; Crosby supports assessment; Harris’s after‑the‑fact affidavit was not in record | Affirmed: $1,200 assessment valid; venire argument procedurally barred |
| Sufficiency of record to support criminal contempt beyond reasonable doubt | Harris: (implicit) his conduct did not meet criminal contempt standard | Court/State: Conduct was open defiance in court that delayed trial; analogous to Mingo | Affirmed: Record supports direct criminal contempt beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Mingo v. State, 944 So. 2d 18 (Miss. 2006) (counsel’s refusal to continue trial can be direct criminal contempt)
- In re Smith, 926 So. 2d 878 (Miss. 2006) (distinct procedural protections required for constructive/indirect contempt)
- Corr v. State, 97 So. 3d 1211 (Miss. 2012) (direct contempt occurs in judge’s presence; judge may punish instantly)
- Crosby v. State, 760 So. 2d 725 (Miss. 2000) (URCCC 3.13 may be used to assess juror costs against attorney who delays trial)
- Jordan v. State, 62 So. 2d 886 (Miss. 1953) (definition of contempt as words/actions embarrassing court)
- Neely v. State, 54 So. 315 (Miss. 1911) (direct contempt includes open insult or defiance in court)