attorney calling witness a liar in hallway during recess contemptuous because such was demoralizing to the court’s authority
How later courts described this case
- attorney calling witness a liar in hallway during recess contemptuous because such was demoralizing to the court’s authority
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRETT, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the results of this decision. It is noted in the findings of fact that on March 7, 1984, the trial judge directed the State to prepare charges against appellant for indirect contempt of court. This was done after the trial was concluded and the defendant was sentenced. The alleged contempt occurred during that trial. Some *497 where along the line the indirect contempt evolved into direct contempt.
I believe the opinion stretches the view of the court to the extreme. The alleged statements were not made “in the session of the court and in its immediate view,” as required by 21 O.S.1981, § 565. The alleged statements were made in the hallway during a court recess. Also, the alleged statement made in the presence of one juror was not of sufficient concern for the State to move for a mistrial. Consequently, there appears to have been no prejudice to the State.
If the alleged statement was contempt at all, it is obvious to this writer that it would have been indirect contempt. In that event the contemnor was entitled to have formal charges made against him and to have had a jury trial as was demanded. Okla. Const, art. II, § 25. That also seemed to have been the position of the trial judge, when he directed the district attorney to prepare indirect contempt charges.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent to this decision.