# Ex Parte Daniels

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 14, 1987 · 722 S.W.2d 707

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862778

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Pamela Board DANIELS
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 14, 1987
- **Citations:** 722 S.W.2d 707; 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 498
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Campbell
- **Judges:** McCormick, Campbell, Clinton, Miller, Teague, Duncan
- **Cited by:** 37 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/9862778

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that it is necessary to require testimony or the production of evidence—put forth by either a public or private prosecutor—to establish that a contempt occurred
- holding that constructive contempt requires testimony or documentary evidence to establish the contemptuous conduct

## Opinion text

CAMPBELL, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
While I believe the majority reached the correct result in this case, I write once again, as I did in Ex Parte Krupps, et al., 712 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) to address what I perceive to be a serious misinterpretation of the law of contempt.
At Maj. opinion pg. 710, the majority observes that in the presence of the court “does not necessarily mean in the immediate presence of the trial judge” and further, that “the court is present whenever any of its constituent parts, the courtroom, the jury and the jury room are engaged in pursuing the work of the court.” Citing Ex Parte Aldridge, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 395 , 334 S.W.2d, 161 (1960) the majority continues that “it was for this reason that the applicant in Ex Parte Aldridge, supra, was properly determined to have committed direct contempt when he placed contemptuous publications in the corridors of the courthouse where prospective jurors would necessarily see them.”
From my reading of the instant case, the contumacious conduct took place immediately in front of the judge (emphasis added) and it is therefore unnecessary for the majority in the instant case to revisit the gymnastics engaged in Krupps where it was observed “that court personnel, such as bailiffs, and implicitly, one imagines, court reporters, clerks, docket coordinators, probation officers, prosecutors, etc., may, through some sort of agency theory observe contumacious conduct, report said conduct to the unsuspecting judge thereby magically transforming constructive contempt into direct contempt, all in the name of and by the authority of being officers of the court.” Ex Parte Krupps, at 160 (Campbell, J. Dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862778. Public record. Not legal advice.