James v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, Fifth Division
2014 Ark. 305
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Defendant William O. James Jr., defense counsel for a manslaughter trial, was found in contempt by the presiding Pulaski County circuit judge for violating a pretrial limitation on how juvenile-probation status of prosecution witnesses could be used.
- The court’s June 18, 2013 ruling allowed cross-examination on the fact of juvenile probation only to show bias or motive, and prohibited specifying offenses or using probation to show character or state of mind at the time of the occurrence.
- During opening statement and cross-examination, James made or elicited repeated references suggesting the juvenile witnesses were committing felonies and trying to avoid being caught; the judge held him in contempt at the bench during trial (one summary citation) and later announced nine additional contempt citations after declaring a mistrial.
- The circuit court originally fined $2,500 per citation (ten citations), later reduced to $500 per citation; James appealed the contempt findings.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court treated the contempts as criminal in nature and affirmed the first, immediate summary contempt but reversed and dismissed contempt citations two through ten for failure to provide the required notice and opportunity to defend and for lack of substantial evidence that James violated the court’s express order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were contempt citations procedurally deficient for lack of notice/opportunity to be heard? | Contempt findings (esp. citations 2–10) deprived James of notice and reasonable time to defend; court "ambushed" him. | Many contempts were either summary (first) or preserved by in-court admonitions; James failed to contemporaneously object. | Reversed for citations 2–10: summary punishment requires immediate action; delayed citations required notice and chance to defend and were invalid. |
| 2. Was the first, at-bench contempt proper as a summary contempt? | First citation was unfair. | The first contempt occurred in the court’s immediate presence and was properly punished summarily. | Affirmed: the first contempt was committed in the court’s presence; summary punishment was permissible. |
| 3. Did announcing contempt on Sunday violate Ark. Code §16-10-114? | Sunday announcement violated statute barring court business on Sunday. | Exception permits court action related to jury deliberations/verdicts; jury was deliberating and returned a mistrial that day. | Rejected James’s argument: the contempt announcement was tied to receiving the jury verdict/deliberations and was authorized. |
| 4. Did James’s conduct actually violate the court’s limiting order or render the order unconstitutional? | The court’s limitation was unconstitutional and/or James did not in fact violate its express commands. | The order must be obeyed while in force; James violated it by arguing character/state-of-mind and admitted he would "move on." | Court held that the first contempt was supported by the record; but for citations 2–10 the court found James’s conduct did not clearly violate the order as written, so those citations lacked substantial evidence and were dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzhugh v. State, 296 Ark. 137 (discussing distinction between civil and criminal contempt and character of relief)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (permitting inquiry into juvenile status to test witness bias)
- Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (due-process protections for alleged contemnors; ambush concerns)
- Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (limits and cautions on summary contempt)
- Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (recognizing situations permitting immediate contempt to preserve courtroom order)
- Meeks v. State, 80 Ark. 579 (court orders must be obeyed while in force)