Brown v. LathamBrown v. Latham
These cases, which were consolidated on appeal, arose from proceedings on petitions for contempt for failure to make child sup
Pursuant to a decree of divorcе, Fred De Loach Latham was ordered to make certain child support payments. Subsequently, his former wife, Susan Latham (Brown), was awarded a judgment for arrearage and a wage assignment issued to Latham’s employer. In response tо a petition for contempt seeking the imposition of a fine and incarceration, Latham filed a third-party complaint against his employer claiming the support payments had been deducted from his wages. Latham also made a motion that the contempt proceedings be tried before a jury. Similarly, Clint Monroe Walker was charged upon a petition for contempt which sought his incarceration pursuant to
The trial courts denied the motions for a jury trial. On interlocutory appeals granted by the Court of Appeals, that court reversed and held that a person charged under
The Attorney General, who appeared as amicus curiae in the Latham case and prosecuted the petition for contempt on behalf of the Statе in the Walker case, asserts on behalf of the prosecution that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the resрondents are entitled to trial by jury. The State insists that
The respondents say the Court of Appeals reached the right conclusion, that they are entitled to jury trials, but contend that the Court of Appeals erred in basing its decision on the finding that
The decision of this Court is that
The respondent is entitled to a jury trial on the charge. In State v. Dusina,
For violation of general criminal statutes, however, where a fine of more than $50.00 or any confinement of the accused may be imposed, the right to jury trial under the Tennessee constitution is well-established.
Id. at 768. In that case the Court, overruling a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals adopting the federal definition of a small offense, stated:
We resрectfully disagree with the Court of Criminal Appeals, however, in its decision in this case and in the case of Robinson v. Gaines,725 S.W.2d 692 (Tenn.Crim.App.1986) that a “small offense” under Tennessee law can include a term of imprisonment up to six months. In the two cases the Court оf Criminal Appeals adopted the definition of a small offense under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. This definition includes offenses in which there may not be a fine in excess of $50.00 or a jail sentence of more than six months. In such eases the United States Supreme Court has held that there is no right to a trial by jmy under the federal сonstitution.
The term “small offense” has traditionally been defined in Tennessee as one in which the punishment cannot exсeed a fine of $50.00 and which carries no confinement in a jail or workhouse.
Id. at 768 (citations omitted). For the purpоses of these cases,
Pretermitted are the additional issues raised by the respondents: thе constitutional limitations on a court’s authority to punish for contempt; the distinction between a criminal offense аnd a criminal contempt; the relevance of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 38 of the Tennessee Constitution to incarceration for any purposes other than punishment for a crime; and the practice of allowing counsel for an interested party (other than the State) to prosecute criminаl con-tempts.
Costs are taxed against the State.
Notes
.
(b) No arrest warrant shall issue for the violation of any court order of support if such violation occurrеd during a period of time in which the obligor was incarcerated in any penal institution and was otherwise unable to cоmply with the order.
. See Rule 4, Tenn.R.Crim.P.;
A warrant of arrest is an order, in writing, stating the substance of the complaint, directed to a proper officer, signed by a magistrate, and commanding the arrest of the defendant.