# Autry v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · November 2, 2007 · 172 P.3d 212

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786610

## Case

- **Full name:** David AUTRY, Appellant v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 2, 2007
- **Citations:** 172 P.3d 212; 2007 OK CR 41; 2007 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 40; 2007 WL 3229486
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Lumpkin, Johnson, Chapel, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786610

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying 21 0.S. § 566

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge,
concurs in part/dissents in part.
1 I concur in the decision and analysis by the Court on the issue of contempt. However I must dissent to the Court's discussion of the assessment of costs in this case. This issue was previously decided in Zeigler v. State, 1991 OK CR 25 , 806 P.2d 1181 .
T2 The Court misapplies Zeigler to somehow think there must be a second trial before the costs of impaneling a jury can be assessed. That is not the requirement of Zeig-ter, and would be impracticable to apply since in all contempt citations the Court would have to wait in assessing punishment until it determined if another trial would be held. Whether or not a second trial is held is not the issue. The fact is this jury, and the cost incurred, was impaneled for this trial which, because of Appellant's actions, was declared a mistrial. As we said in Zeigler,
We would agree that jury costs are generally the expense of maintaining the system of courts, but in this case, the expense was caused by the contempt of the appellant and had nothing to do with maintaining the system. This is a case where appellant's contempt was the cause of the expense that he should bear.
1991 OK CR 25 , T 6, 806 P.2d at 1185.
T3 The same principle applies in this case and the Court should consistently apply our previous holding in Zeigler to the facts of this case. The costs in this case are directly related to the actions by Appellant which constituted the contempt.
T 4 I would follow Zeigler and affirm the judgment and sentence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786610. Public record. Not legal advice.