Knox v. Municipal Court of City of Des Moines
185 N.W.2d 705
Iowa
1971
Check Treatment

*1 7Q5 KNOX, Plaintiff, Charles DES OF the CITY OF

MUNICIPAL COURT Iowa, COUNTY, MOINES, and Hon- POLK Ray Judge, orable Defendant.

No. 54564.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 9, 1971. *2 Glenn, Moines, F. Des

Charles West for plaintiff. King, County Atty., H. Asst. John

defendant. STUART, Justice. m.,

At about p. 12:30 November appeared Charles Knox in the Des Moines Municipal Judge Court before Howard response charging Brooks in to a summons operating him with a motor vehicle while suspension. was under It is license necessary to describe the events that took place at that time in detail as Knox does contemp- contend his conduct was not It is sufficient to state he un- tuous. was insolent, cooperative, insulting and disre- throughout spectful the court toward proceedings. patrolman After the had tes- anything if he had tified Knox was asked guilty nothing say. He “I am said: helping people.” but al- Judge then stated he had no Brooks find and sen- guilty ternative but to Knox days county jail. tenced him in the to five mandatory jail carries a sen- The violation than tence of not less than two nor more 321.218, days. thirty 1971. Section Code toward Knox looked one of his friends courtroom, spit turned and on developed in the judge. A disturbance courtroom which resulted the confine- ment of Knox and some of his friends. immediately left courtroom spitting after the incident. “arraigned” “county at- Knox was on a Harri- torney’s Judge information” before evening. p. m. the same son about 6:00 time was such that His conduct at that summarily guilty of was found Judge Harrison and sentenced county Hearing jail. six months occurring contempt matter morn- Brooks’ court was set for the next this sometimes nebulous distinc- ap- ing. morning longer Mr. significance. next Glenn tion is no pointed 121-128; to defend Mr. Knox trial was Law Review But see Bloom v. Tuesday, At reset November 1970. Illinois 391 U.S. 88 S.Ct. hearing Knox was Chapter conclusion of 20 L.Ed.2d sentenced to a second six months term Drady makes no such distinction. v. Given *3 county jail. 345, 348, 115, the 126 (1905), Iowa 102 N.W. 116. granted to re- We Writs Certiorari proceedings the in

view both “An indirect or constructive is opinion committed, matters. In we concerned presence this are an act in the only court, proceeding it, with the the but at a distance from which place arose out of incidents degrade obstruct, the took court in- tends the or terrupt, before prevent Brooks. or embarrass administra- Law, justice.” tion of Wharton’s Criminal power punish I. The for con 703, 3, page Vol. 1330. tempt is consti inherent nature and spo- A direct consists of words tution aof It court. is not derived from presence ken or acts committed in the statute, implied but necessary is as it is the court which tend to have the same ef- the exercise powers of the other the fect. it, courts. the Without administration of the law danger would be in continual “presence the court” extends be- being parte thwarted Ex lawless. yond places the sight those within Terry 289, (1888), 303, 77, 128 U.S. 9 S.Ct. of the hearing presiding A court 405, 32 L.Ed. is indispensable 408. It session, present “at when in is ev- least protection orderly of due and adminis ery part of place apart set its own justice tration of and in maintaining use, officers, and for jurors, the use of its authority dignity of the court. “But witnesses; anywhere and misbehavior one, its exercise is a delicate and care is place pres- in such misbehavior in the is arbitrary needed to oppressive avoid or parte ence court.” Ex Savin conclusions.” v. Cooke United States 702, 699, 267, 277, (1888), 131 U.S. 9 S.Ct. 517, 539, (1925), 390, 396, 267 U.S. 45 S.Ct. States, 150, 153; 33 L.Ed. v. United Cooke 767, 69 L.Ed. See 775. District Haines v. 535-536, at supra, 45 267 at S.Ct. U.S. 476, (1925), 480, Court 199 Iowa 202 N.W. Harding 773-774; v. 394-395, at 69 L.Ed. 268, 270; State ex rel. District Arthaud v. 561, 19 556, McCullough (1945), Iowa 236 187, (1904), 190, Court 124 Iowa (1964), Skar 613, 617; People v. N.W.2d 712, 713. re 101, 491, 102. N.E.2d 30 Ill.2d 198 N. 213, 254 App.2d Ohio (1969), Neff Contempt ways: is classified in two 25, E.2d Criminal or civil and direct indirect or (constructive). dig Offenses against de contempt is nity process court, nature of the com whether oc act the offensive

mitted at the time presence of the termined or out it occurs contempts. court are If criminal curs. Offenses con instance, is a direct it court, in this against the as party for whose a court benefit indirect into converted tempt. It contempts. order was are As made civil proce- chooses contempt because treat quasi-criminal we all as aby heard matter Iowa, durely, (Iowa, Brown v. District Court whom before one than the other 748; v. 1968), 744, Huston N.W.2d However, proce committed. contempt was 549, N. 543, (1963), Huston upon vary depending requirements dural Court 896; Brody District W.2d at presiding whether 1217, 1221, (1959), 250 Iowa per- upon act his own Ct. hearing can 25 L.Ed.2d tempt Harris v. United rely knowledge must on evidence. States U.S. 86 S.Ct. sonal 240, 242; Oliver, 15 L.Ed.2d In Re su- proceeding “The mode of pra; Harding McCullough, supra, every such mis- case of the same is not However, Iowa at 19 N.W.2d at 617. commit- behavior. Where involved, only a short trial was he was eye or within directly under ted proceed well advised to a conclusion ‘upon its may proceed view unjustified the face of vicious and verbal facts, punish knowledge of the own attacks on the court and the judge. When offender, proof and further without contemptuous place, ultimate act took form,’ (Ex or trial issue completed action had been on the matter Terry, 9 S.Ct. parte 128 U.S. summary proceeding him whereas, mis- in cases of 405); L.Ed.2d preserve dignity the order and of court *4 have judge cannot which the behavior of proceedings longer necessary. was no knowledge, and informed personal is such commendably Judge Brooks declined to party, by the only the confession of thereof consider the matter himself but others, the by testimony under oath of observed the admonitions the United is, process, by other proper practice rule or Supreme States Court and our own cases appear and require the offender show to to possi to substitute another whenever punished. why he should not cause * Pennsylvania, Mayberry supra; ble. v. * * procedure this difference But States, supra, v. at Cooke United 267 U.S. question as to whether not affect the does 539, 395, 775; 45 at S.Ct. 69 at L.Ed. not, meaning do within particular acts Court, supra, Brown v. 158 District N.W. statute, constitute misbehavior 749; Newby 2d at District v. Court Savin, parte the court.” Ex 1330, 1342, (1967), 259 Iowa 147 N.W.2d 277, 702, at 33 9 at S.Ct. supra, 131 U.S. 886, 894; Bisignano Municipal v. Court Illinois, supra, 391 153; Bloom v. at L.Ed. 895, 910, 523, (1946), 237 Iowa 23 N.W.2d 1483, 204, L.Ed.2d at at 20 at S.Ct. 88 532; U.S. Drady Given, supra, at v. 353, 530. at 118. Failure to do so can appropriate require under circumstances due exception these to “The narrow hearing remand for before another only charges process requirements includes Mayberry Pennsylvania, supra; Offutt court, pres- misconduct, open in the 11, (1954), v. United 75 States 348 U.S. S. judge, disturbs ence of which 11, 11; Ct. 99 L.Ed. Cooke v. United business, all of the essential where court’s States, supra. under the are elements of the misconduct by court, actually eye are observed However, by substituting differ court, punish- immediate and where longer judge, was no ent misconduct prevent ‘demoralization is ment essential hearing presid sight within the * * * authority’ of the court’s could act ing judge. Judge Harrison 333 U.S. public.” (1948), Re Oliver nec knowledge. his own Evidence was 682, 499, L.Ed. 68 S.Ct. essary petitioner was entitled to “[B]e him, charges have a advised of by opportunity to meet them reasonable properly Judge Brooks could way explanation, of defense or instantly petitioner have acted and held counsel, represented by right to be violating his guilty contempt without testify and call other wit have a chance to Mayberry rights. constitutional v. State by way of de nesses behalf either Pennsylvania, January filed Oliver, su explanation.” fense or In Re 532; Il pra, at at L. 27 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. U.S. S.Ct. States, supra. Ed. at Cooke United 337, 90 S. Allen U.S. linois v. III. Petitioner contends affidavit here afford no proceedings Did the 665..6, by required filed as required above? was section process due Knox provides: “Unless the was notified of that He hold did. We pres- by the information committed the immediate view and against him charges represented ence comes to its officially He was arraignment. hearing. knowledge, showing an affidavit the nature a full and afforded counsel peti necessary open court that of the transaction is as basis announced Counsel premises.” further introduce evidence action going was not tioner obviously had rested. Petitioner interpret must lan- We italicized attempt con purge himself from wish re- to determine if an affidavit guage ’ Har tempt. parting His remarks quired under shown the circumstances are still Fascist and’ rison were: “You legislature here. We believe the intended (indicating) Heil your swastika draw a distinction between direct and all shit. You’re Heil Harrison previously defined. indirect denied a Fascist.” Knox still have reached the conclusion. Others same rights. constitutional “Generally, proceedings cases turn our II. We now attention (indirect) contempt constructive are com Code, contempt chapter chapter by the filing menced of an stat affidavit acknowledged legislative 665. We have ing showing contempt.” facts Tut *5 imposed punishment on for limitations con tle (1916), v. Hutchinson 173 Iowa tempt statutory recognized proce and have 845, 851. 519, 151N.W. requirements. Harding dural Mc v. “Although the Iowa statute defines di- Cullough (1945), 236 Iowa 19 N. contempts rect and for the constructive 613, 616; Baker (1937), State v. W.2d * * purpose L. of trial Iowa 359, 361; Iowa 270 N.W. Haines Rev. 124. (1925), 199 v. District Court Iowa 479-480, Legislative 270. N.W. coupling view” with The “immediate of they are definitions so broad “presence prevents us the court” way power in no conflict with the inherent inclu- applying from broader and more punish contempt. the court for “presence definition sive Harding McCullough, supra, cita and phrase to that as used in the statute. court” tions. ato phrase equivalent as there is The used provisions chapter The of this have been hearing of sight and substantially the same since the 1851 Code. invoke entitling him to presiding judge language the sections hereinbefore summary procedure. clearly discussed is identical. statutes its

provide procedure officially involving language for matters comes “or statute. contempt. They indirect constructive the Iowa knowledge” unique aof presentation what also state must be done held “the when a have that We thereon, even summarily contemptuous rules on return subpoena conduct with the form, failure personal of which he and the knowledge. irregular In though ba- appear, view of recent was sufficient proc- concern with due of a witness trial, for a fair as proceeding ess and which could sis for knowledge of summarily will, been coming officially handled in- with appear witness creasing frequency, court; be heard dif- the failure before a Coutts judge. necessarily manifest.” clearly ferent being The statutes do not 297, 302- procedure set forth the to be followed in District Court necessarily re- It require case and interpretation. such our outside occurs 120-year It is difficult to make conduct which old statutes fers to knowledge personal concepts presence fit the modern rights. physical of civil interpret contempt proceeding this as he was miss presiding We personally definition not served with a rule to show the broader language to include “every namely: provided in section Re- cause 665.7. “presence of the court” own use not nec- place apart spondent set its claims such service was part of the officers, essary. jurors agree. its We for the use of witnesses”. provide interpret the statute to We contemptuous if the act occurs in the im- conduct the court Contemptuous presiding mediate view and presid than the of a other one room upon judge so he his own knowl- act contempt hearing within ing at the falls may proceed edge, summarily. If the n making definition a direct this case this presiding judge proceed summari- does contempt. hold We therefore criminal ly and the matter is heard before a differ- necessary to file an affidavit be judge, ent there two (1) are alternatives: proceeding fore further. rule serve the offender with a to show give him a time cause reasonable petition IV. There is no merit in therefor, (2) bring him before the comply claim that er’s failure to with sec warrant, given day forthwith or the proceedings tion 665.9 renders invalid. necessary. provides: “If the court or 665.9 Section upon personal knowledge acts judge did presiding this instance premises, upon a statement of the facts summarily. elected to not act The State the order founded must entered forth- bring the court offender filed on the records of the court or be “preliminary information” and with on a keeps when the court no record preserved “arraignment”, an time hear- hold at which part the record.” shall be day. As the State ing was set chose and as we the second alternative applies to the summa This statute I informa- have held in Division that the *6 ry proceedings to be used when order arraignment constitution- tion satisfied by made before whom con requirements, neces- al notice it was not actually preserve It is tempt to occurred. a rule to sary to serve contemnor with contemp a to record of facts be found show cause. tuous, appear might otherwise record, in the contemnor wishes event states section 665.7 Petitioner B. by seek It has refer review certiorari. op requires given he a reasonable be evidentiary ence to an which is hearing explain portunity his conduct. This is by covered section 665.8. Charlton, supra, 243 true. v. Iowa Watson 610-611; “Before provides:

V. Section 665.7 86-89, Harding at at 50 N.W.2d contempt, 562, the offend- punishing unless McCullough, supra, Iowa at 19 v. 236 already er is 617; rel. Arthaud at State ex v. N.W.2d personally 189, he must served 187, be with rule (1904), District 124 Iowa Court punishment, 712, and a 713; show cause v. Russell French 99 N.W. therefor; 102, 741, or given 105, reasonable time him Iowa 67 may he forth- brought be court he he 742. It is clear whether claims with, day, warrant, by or if given claim, right. this is was denied that If may, necessary. In he at his either case opportunity has no merit. He had the option, explanation his make a written declined do so. introduce evidence but oath, conduct under which must be filed explanation could filed a written He preserved.” he from time counsel was so desired con

appointed guilty until he was found request tempt. made no for time to A. Petitioner claims trial He event, explanation. court erred in overruling his to dis- file a written motion

7H op- punished given he must be a reasonable throughout proceeding his conduct explanation portunity a written has been to make often a waiver. Waiver stituted oath, relinquishment or his under unless the offender intentional conduct an defined as has, right. right by conduct waived such privi- or his of a abandonment known contempt order upon The facts which the lege. expression oral or written No part founded must made required. may It be found waiver is from (665.9). record attendant an examination of all the facts may be ascertained circumstances. It In the of a direct which is case Babb’s, person’s from a conduct. Inc. v. being presented other than the to a Iowa, 211, 213; Babb, 169 v. State N.W.2d occurred, one before whom the misconduct 396, Williams, Iowa, 182 400 may- proceed an affida- in each. See also United States citations appear The contemnor vit (665.6). Chichester, Cir., v. F.2d 275. with a voluntarily, personally served cause, brought before the Maccabees, rule show In Hexom v. by including legal process a warrant this court (1908) said: N.W. pre- must be taken (665.7). Evidence relinquishment “A is the intentional waiver must be (665.8). served Contemnor right, or such conduct as war- a known present defense relinquishment, rants an inference of such [*] n » [*] he so and/or requests before explain his conduct, judgment and sen- writing if he his conduct (665.7) tence unless general waiver are rules of rights. waived such applicable proceedings. An al leged may by his conduct be contemnor by the procedure followed hold the We procedural have waived rules or found to met constitutional in this instance State requirements. Mills Harriet Cotton v. Lo statutory requirements. Wkrs., cal Textile N.C. No. arising out 646; matters For other 79 A.L.R.2d Licata S.E.2d Knox herein see the incidents involved States, Cir., 429 F.2d United Harrison, Judge, No. Ray A.L.R.2d v. Honorable Anno. Ray 23/54601; v. Honorable DePatten There was no indication wished to 19/54552; Green Harrison, No. Judge, explain attempt conduct to purge his No. Judge, Ray Honorable contempt. By continuing himself Municipal Court 20/54553; Rhem v. contemptuous conduct, right he waived his Ray Honorable City Moines and of Des *7 explanation pre- make a written of 21/54555, as of filed Harrison, No. Judge, ceding contemptuous Coyle conduct. 718, opinion, of this date 1022, Sawyer 1027-1028, (1924), 198 Iowa 720, 722, 724. 721, 723; 200 N.W. Hardin v. Silvari Writ annulled. 223, offer an “[T]he therefor would idle formali- have been an MASON, Le- MOORE, J., and C. ty, not exacted the law.” Hardin v. REES, JJ., concur. and GRAND Silvari, supra. UHLENHOPP, and RAWLINGS summary we a presiding hold that BECKER, dissent. JJ., may proceed summarily to determine contempt matter of when the misconduct UHLENHOPP, (dissenting). Justice occurred his immediate and view presence and without an (665.6) affidavit or a Cases which (665.7). questions rule to show cause procedural Before the of- 54601 involve be adjudged guilty proceedings, fender is and will contempt contempt arose together. considered The substantive evi- If the be committed in the petitioners contemp- court, dence acted indicates face of the may offender be tuously. guilt But instantly apprehended substantive does not imprisoned, at procedural mean rules be judges, discarded. the discretion did, procedure If it fair proof the rules for to as- or examination. But further guilt certain would not needed in the occurring distance, at matters of which place. first the court perfect cannot have so knowledge, except by the confession of Knox, charged Petitioner Charles with a others; parties, testimony or the violation, traffic before the Honorable if judges upon affidavit see suffi- Brooks, Judge Howard of the Munici- W. ground suspect cient that a pal Moines, Court of Des Iowa. Some of committed, they has been either make a friends, petitioners Knox’s the other party suspected rule on the to show cases, these Judge were in courtroom. why cause an attachment should not is- Brooks sentenced Knox for the traffic of- him; against very flagrant sue or in A petitioners fense. ruckus occurred contempt, the cases of attachment issues contemptuously. acted Among other instance; does, in the first as it also things, spit Judge Knox Brooks. no sufficient cause shown to dis- thereupon Judge charge, and Brooks the court makes pe- left courtroom and original titioners at absolute the rule. were taken one time or another Harrison, before Ray the Honorable anoth- These two kinds were er of that court. Petitioners were brought into our first our law code and charged cases, on forms for criminal Code, have been day. this continued to language forms followed Code, 1971, seq.; 1608 et 665.1 et § § statute defining generally. Knox seq. pertinent provisions are: thereupon contemptuously acted before Judge calling Fascist, him a but 665.6. Unless the is com- § petitioners the other were not contemp- mitted in pres- the immediate view tuous before that court, ence officially or comes Judge summarily found Harrison Knox its knowledge, showing an affidavit in contempt for the committed necessary nature of the transaction is him, Judge and sentenced Knox. prem- a basis for action in further Harrison subsequently hearings held on the ises. Judge committed before Brooks involving petitioners all including punishing 665.7. Before presented, Knox. petitioners tempt, already Evidence was offender is unless the were been in contempt found to have he must be sentenced, Brooks, they were served with a rule to show personally thereupon sought punishment, Petitioners writs of cer- cause and a rea- tiorari, therefor; granted. we sonable time him or he may be the court forth- brought before *8 proper In ascertaining contempt pro- I. warrant, with, day, by given or on a case, cedure for a a distinction be- necessary. may, In case he at his either tween contempt two must kinds of be ob- option, explanation his make a written of served, contempt may of one kind oath, conduct under must be filed which punished while the other summarily kind preserved. and requires steps further to be taken. Black- stone refers to two kinds as “con- these 665.8. the action of the Where § tempts in upon the the and given by face of court” “con- court is founded evidence sequential says others, contempts.” writing, He in his such must be evidence Commentaries, Ed. 1941) preserved. : and be filed (Gavitt and judge If the or acts in that the 665.9. court reason this rule is obvious § upon personal knowledge prem- validity rely upon the is entitled to the court ises, requires upon perception which and the facts of his own sense statement the is must be entered on no evidence to corroborate order founded extraneous court, and is knowledge. the records of the or filed But where the court such keeps position his preserved upon court in a own rely when the not record, truth, requires part shall be of the record. as criteria of but and senses others, only for the the evidence of not com- 665.10. When the offender is purpose determining whether mitted, par- the warrant must state the occurred, the disorder has but whether ticular and facts circumstances on which contu- causing the conduct disorder premises, the court acted the and macious, the the con- then it is rule that knowledge the in the whether same was tempt is indirect. by proved of the court or was witnesses. State, 242 Ind. In Brennan v. contempt vary among statutes the 312: N.E.2d jurisdictions states. But not ob- which have literated the distinction between the two constitute a direct criminal con- [T]o kinds contempt tempt, be committed alleged differentiate the two on act must presence knowledge the basis person- of whether the contumacy knowledge al out- distinguished must as from actions proof. usually presence hear of the court or outside former is called side contempt knowledge direct indirect the immediate court. the latter tempt. People The court said this in Thurston, Ariz. Ong Hing v. 499, 508-509, Howarth, 415 Ill. 114 N.E.2d 416,424: 416 P.2d 785, 790: important is that re- An consideration direct Where a is committed personal spondent did not knowl- open competent court is for the edge petitioner the restrain- that violated proceed upon personal knowledge alleged did ing order since the violation punish facts and to the offender place presence. At the take in his summarily entering any rule without upon hearing, respondent relied the testi- hearing any him and evi- mony documentary * * * evi- others dence. When file dence the case ascertain if an apparent not an its one and demonstra- * * * act had occurred. upon proof tion depends of facts of any contempt in this It follows that mat- notice, judicial has no petitioner was enti- ter was indirect requires process due citation in order e., procedural process, tled to due i. no- that defendant meet and refute charges against him and an tice of charges. (Italics added.) be heard. court stated Provenzale v. Proven zale, Tozer, Ill.App. 345, N.E.2d In Curtis S.W.2d 117: : (Mo.App.) frequently

It has direct that been held A one occurs Su- preme so Court of this of the court or near State where proceedings. If interrupt is within the view of its the court is of such certified that he saw or heard nature as disturb orderly processes procedure, constituting of court conduct *9 contempt pres- direct criminal, is and the that it was committed in the actual contempt may may proceed summarily court of a direct ence the necessity summarily. the taking punished of The evidence.

714 Ill. People punitive v. aspect contempt 403 The the

See also of Whitlow, 208; People power v. 357 86 N.E.2d Ill. is court as a addressed 222; Smith, only 191 McAdams v. through N.E. whole but is exercised 446; Ill.App.2d People 166 N.E.2d very any v. individuals. The nature of Ill.App. 726; Hagopian, contemptuous requires, 99 N.E.2d in- act in most State, stances, LaGrange v. 238 Ind. jurisdiction punish N.E. such Contempt contempt by 2d at 8. the individual § While C.J.S. possess judges each and all of the distinguish Modern commentators contempt power same as members of the contempt way. two kinds of in the same tribunal, power the exercise of such is Goldfarb, Power, Contempt This said is singular rather than unanimous. is a It (1963): and practical reasonable con- solution to clude that di- suggested contempt

It is are summary further that if statutes procedures continually particular rected to the applied judge are to di- of cases, application court instead contempt rect broader these situations added.) strictly (Italics word. should be limited to acts which physical, are direct geographical personal clearly Our statute reflects sense, upon that so courts can act infor- knowledge. evidentiary di- establishment — mation which through comes to them Blackstone, decisions, chotomy found perception. their own sensual and the commentators. Section 665.6 dif- Perkins, Law, And in (2d Criminal contempt pres- Ed. ferentiates in the view and 1969): officially coming ence of the court knowledge contempt. its from other Sec-

The procedure determinant is supplement insofar tions 665.8 665.9 each other contempt concerned is whether the formerly and were one The for- section. committed under such circumstances that requires proof contempt mer that the es- the judge has knowledge all given by facts tablished “evidence others” and hence need to hear evidence. writing; re- must be in the latter section (Italics added.) quires judge “personal that on acts knowledge” must the facts be entered Dangel, Contempt, 447, 449, See also §§ requires record. Section 665.10 (1939). warrant of recite wheth- commitment must contempt knowledge er the “was What about the contempt direct-indirect proved by the court or was witnesses.” distinction in the court? multiple-judge kinds Thus distinction between the two depends The answer judges on whether the contempt retained. together sit separately as a court or sit with exercising powers 665.6, each expression about What § Code, 1971, g., Apply- court. E. knowledge” officially 604.37. “or comes its ? ing the personal knowledge test of versus judge this mean a who has been Does evidentiary establishment, com- subject of a direct can inform presence mitted in the judges sitting to- con- judge another about it and make the gether aas constitutes direct tempt a direct one the second tempt. But a Obviously committed in judge? not. The second of a who “personal knowledge prem- sits alone is not a has no direct gets of another rely who He ises.” must evidence. proof words, from evidence indirect as to him. personally rather being officially knowledge,” than refer contemned. its “comes is brought Ong distinction out in notice Hing judicial to matters of which Thurston, 101 Ariz. neces- 416 P.2d taken and of which evidence is not Howarth, 422: sary People case. Cf.

715 785, 499, purpose showing able time 509, (con- N.E.2d 790 for 114 415 Ill. cause, brought judge or be before to facts of tempt is indirect as brought day purpose, or knowledge “judi- or for be personal judge has judge forthwith—and a warrant notice”). failure a witness to before cial The may necessary. his Un- response (c) issue if 665.7. judge appear before § contempt, confesses the example. v. District less offender subpoena is an Coutts heard, County, contempt is of the then Poweshiek evidence in and Court evidence, any. contrary The evi- 362. Iowa N.W. preserved. writing must dence be § procedural steps must be tak- II.What 665.8; Aylesworth, Lutz ? contempt in the two kinds of en transcript notes and (reporter’s N.W. sufficient), judge holds the of- (d) The contempt in direct is sum- procedure The contempt quashes fender or the rule to already knows mary. judge, The who (a) cause, in evi- show accordance with the knowledge personal from of the (e) judge dence. If holds the offender the offend- notice, simply holds judicial contempt, give judge must him an to show without a rule er opportunity explanation to make written Taylor cause. v. District Court State conduct under oath. The (f) 665.7. § If 187, 99 N.W. 712. County, 124 Iowa then judge exonerates the offender or in- departed is otherwise offender punishment, (g) flicts If offender is absent, ap- who does not such as a witness committed, the warrant must recite the may brought have him pear, facts circumstances of the contempt, (b) he can held in so that be proved by and state that same wit- were however, Then, give the of- must nesses. 665.10. § ex- fender an written make planation of his under oath conduct. § What kinds are III. in- 665.7; Charlton, 243 Iowa Watson v. volved here P French, 67 Russell v. N.W.2d disposed of Judge Harrison all Iowa The ex- (c) N.W. 741. contempts; disposed none Judge Brooks punish- the offender or inflicts onerates of them. punished, the (d) ment. If the offender is enter statement of record of judge must Judge contempts committed before The constituting contempt. the facts § Judge Harrison. were indirect as to Brooks committed, If (e) 665.9. the offender necessary Testimony witnesses was recite the facts and cir- warrant must contempts. establish those and that same cumstances Judge contempt committed before judge’s knowledge. 665.10. were § him. as to Harrison was a direct contempt is procedure with indirect required procedural steps IV. Were the extended, An affidavit must be (a) more taken ? showing filed the nature of the transaction contempt, 665.6. The constituting Contempts. Jiidge Committed § allegations may general of the affidavit necessity Brooks. exists for this court No allegations “should general step but the be suf- to consider more as to than the first ficiently specific apprise party contempts Judge committed before charged particular action or actions indi- Brooks. Since those were held which it is claimed he should be rect as affidavits Municipal contempt.” “showing Court Stein the nature of transaction” City, necessary. Sioux Iowa the affi- were 665.6. While general, already must served (b) offender could be seen davits pun- general allegations with a rule show cause suffi- “These should be ; specific party then be a reason- ciently apprise ishment allowed *11 * * particular of the action charged set down for immediate hearing so that Municipal City, dispose Stein v. Court Sioux we of it at this time. Iowa Well, The Court: I would be for that here, if they The affida- affidavits were except that I think give we should Mr. vits, gave on forms were criminal opportunity Knox the to a hearing. have charged no information as to conduct contemptuous. merely to The be forms Defendant: (Laughter.) contemptuous stated the offenders used The Court: And there are Judge insolent behavior toward you, more you outbursts from will I find Brooks, 665.2(1). in the language of § contempt in right now. general The followed the forms definition statute, contempt in stating without ahead, cares, Defendant: Go who Fas- contempts how the as thus defined were cist. committed. The claimed affidavits were Let Court: the record show that insufficient. Mr. Knox has referred this to Court as The writs should thus be sustained as to Fascist and it the judgment is contempts Judge all the committed before Court that now pe- he be confined for a Brooks. riod of County six months in the Jail and that he be fined addition $500 Contempt Judge Harrison. The before thereto. by Judge committed Knox before and, Harrison to that was direct as Now, Knox, you Mr. do to enter want in proceedings judge, before that be could your plea on this this disposed summarily. step The first other one? would be to hold the contempt, offender in Defendant: I plea enter no enter —I step the second give would be to plea good no and it is to be sentenced opportunity offender an to make written you, Fascist. explanation. necessity No exists for this court to consider than more the second plea The Court: I will enter a not step. guilty your and set trial. step

This proceedings holding offender (direct) (whether separate direct indirect) punishment and the infliction of step attempt from a contemnee’s show to came one Russell sentence. See French, he is in contempt. Especially in indi- 67 Iowa 24 N.W. contempt proceedings, rect the contemnee (“The adjudged the defendant and commonly punishment, evidence speak, introduces to show that inflicted so to in fact contemptuous. he not been breath.”). But The judge rightly same could if he is unsuccessful and the in contempt, finds hold offender since the subject him contempt to judge, comes occurred before the but punishment, step then given under consid- offender opportunity un- eration right is reached —the der to a written be- contemnee’s 665.7 make statement § “explanation punishment. make conduct under fore Code, 1971, 665.7; oath”. Russell v. right Did offender waive his French, 24 N.W. 741. to make a state- ment? The trial court threatened brought When Judge Knox was before responded, tempt and the offender “Go Harrison before ahead, cares, earlier who Fascist.” Under Brooks, this occurred: permit this held a court might cases Court, King: please your It if hold an also Mr. offender Honor, punishment, I would proceed ask that this matter be to inflict purpose statutory right to make ex- giving the offender chance punishment. plain primarily Hardin v. give statement offender see Silvari, 114 Iowa chance to communicate his side of the con- Sawyer, troversy Coyle right Iowa at com- also did —a *12 decided, right Since those were mon But the has additional N.W. 721. cases law. two however, unmis- spoken practice, this court has out if an beneficial effects. actual takably duty grant an opportunity the a court to ex- on offender an explana- down, plain, chance to infrequently offender make an he will cool Charlton, folly course, of his become tion. Watson see the 605, 610. the contention especially There he more counsels tractable — by right Too, was that the offender waived the judge with wiser heads. has flatly she having definitely opportunity composed stated to become more comply requirement with objective, resulting would not a ex- less likelihood of judge. Notwithstanding, this punishment. the district cessive duty judge court held the district had the statutory Knox was accorded give opportunity the offender explanation right of be- as to punishment her statement was make before Harrison, should Judge fore and the writ Thompson Judge inflicted. laid down that contempt. be sustained as duty an in these requirement, invariable terms: disposition make of What should we V. obstreperous These individuals cases? general principle which evolves not be should should absolved. The cases study a of the and the cases from statute municipal to the con- be returned court for

interpreting and is clear. applying tempt proceedings pro- comport which with right explanation make a written rule requirements. cedural certiorari expressly or excuse is and no granted, disposition. Rules permits such Rule conviction should be had until reasonable the man- (“prescribing of Civil Procedure alleged has been given to party may proceed either fur- ner in which contemnor to exercise it. The common ther”). contrary; law was to and it is statute, however, Now, manifest intent exists. situation this substantially contempt proceedings existed Iowa in its were The traffic present Consequently proceedings form almost since formation concluded. those state, contempts, change interrupted the rule order will not be if the formerly remand, harsh at- to avoid the results are referred before May upon summary contempts proceedings tendant See whom occurred. 665.7, Pennsylvania, under berry these matters. Code Section S. U.S. numbers, its various has been consistent- 27 L.Ed.2d 532. Ct. interpreted by past to

ly this court in the before Clearly committed give the accused a and substantial real be referred to Judge Harrison should added.) right. (Italics could contin- judge. Judge third Harrison before hearing committed ue pro- Judge Thompson’s The wisdom of contempt was But Judge Brooks. since nouncement is evident This offender here. also, all Judge before Harrison committed just had Judge misbehaved before Brooks. a third ought to referred to of the cases brought When was soon in their judge. persevere If the offenders atmosphere undoubtedly them- they expose will misconduct charged. He called Fas- Judge Harrison a proceedings be- to direct selves cist, and in one in con- sentence was held judge. third fore the tempt very and was also meted out severe unique, punishment, Finally, contempt power is the maximum the law allows contempt power, be- especially the direct jail —six months and a fine of $500. charges, judges, pun- cause unruly

ishes. Boisterous individuals sorely try patience kindest extraordinary power But the

tempt gives pro- that the demands duly requirements

cedural observed to offenders, although they

the end that inflicted, punishment relish’ the

do not can complaint they

have no about the manner

came it.

All the writs should be sustained and the pro-

cases should be remanded for further

ceedings. BECKER, JJ., join

RAWLINGS

this dissent. KNOX, Plaintiff,

Charles Ray HARRISON, Judge,

Honorable Munici- pal Moines, City Court of the of Des Iowa, County, Polk Defendant.

No. 54601.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 9, 1971. Glenn, Moines,

Charles F. West Des plaintiff. King, County Atty., H. Asst.
John defendant.
STUART, Justice. This is the second matter granted which we Charles Knox