Graves v. State
2011 Miss. LEXIS 367
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Tunica County Prosecutor Graves appeared in circuit court with three DUI cases on March 12, 2009.
- Defense counsel and the judge indicated the first two cases were not ready because defense counsel lacked video recordings of arrests.
- Graves had repeatedly requested the videos from the sheriff’s department; production was not forthcoming.
- The court sua sponte found Graves in contempt and ordered incarceration after indicating readiness problems.
- For the third case, defense counsel was absent; the court initially began but halted proceedings due to lack of attorney for the defendant.
- Graves was sentenced to two days in jail and fined $100; after a contempt hearing, time served replaced the jail term, but the fine remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process for indirect contempt | Graves argues he lacked notice/hearing before a different judge. | State argues proper contempts and review by the same judge. | Graves denied due process; remanded and reversed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for wilful contempt | State contends Graves wilfully ignored orders to produce tapes. | Graves asserts lack of access and good-faith obstacles to obtaining tapes. | Evidence insufficient beyond reasonable doubt; conviction cannot stand. |
| Direct vs indirect contempt labeling | State treated as direct contempt for actions in court. | Graves contends conduct occurred outside courtroom, thus indirect contempt. | Concurring analysis shows conduct largely outside presence; appropriate labeling acknowledged. |
| Judicial recusal and substantial involvement | State argues judge properly presided. | Judge Smith’s substantial involvement required another judge to preside. | Judge Smith should not have presided; recusal required. |
| Effect of due-process violations on outcomes | State seeks upholding convictions on the merits. | Graves asserts systemic due-process failures taint convictions. | Convictions reversed and rendered; circuit court order vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graves v. State, 66 So.3d 158 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (contempt and due-process considerations in Mississippi appellate review)
- In re Smith, 926 So.2d 878 (Miss. 2006) (due-process and recusal considerations in contempt proceedings)
- R.K. v. J.K., 946 So.2d 764 (Miss. 2007) (standard for constructive/indirect contempt and due-process protections)
- In re Williamson, 838 So.2d 226 (Miss. 2002) (framework for distinguishing civil vs. criminal contempt)
- In re Hampton, 919 So.2d 949 (Miss. 2006) (recusal and substantial involvement in contempt proceedings)
- Cook v. State, 483 So.2d 371 (Miss. 1986) (due-process requirements in criminal contempt contexts)