Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

a3 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN lonorablo too. 1). Dart oount Attorney lend@I1 oaunty noertm, T'rxrr iollovm1 r th0 PO~OO iin ea the Jurtiaa l th d b0r0m lm.ttb to and 10 per aent oom~Irslon on C. S. authorlcmr the Justiae ior aonterpt 0r oourt. c. ?. 917, rote forth hor thm {$8X;. rent. of a J&ice of thm Peaoe ehall read1 the atats 0r Texas recover 0r the derendant the iin0 and coLaa, etc.’ And Art. 919 provider for the i8ruancr 0r an sxsoutlon ror the collection 0r the fine and c0h. Art. 950 C. C. P’. pro- rid.8 that the County Attorney shall be lntltled &omblo Joe. l. hrt, ?ago 2 to t0a per 0-t or all rin08, r0rrdtu~0 0~ m0a0ym 001100t0d r0r us btm 09 ani7 0-w, upon judgmoato roaovore4 br hlr. Art. 1068 provl4eo that tho rttornrrre noantlng tho btatm mhall reaeive 0 roe 0r P 5.00 on a plea 0r guilty brror8 0 Juotioe Coort. 9h0 0rm00 0r aontempt 0r ootrrt ~a- not be lotked on oo aaflhing but l orlainol aooa, sad It appears to ma that the Justice should proceed ao In my other arlrlaal moo and require paynent of tho aoats. On Uorch 6, 1941, we vroto you requootlag lddltlonal Lpioromtlon rslrtlro to the quootlons stated lbovo, and In aom- gee thorovlth, on April 5, 1941, rou vroto, la port, QO rol- vhlo vu0 oaoo IO. 1904, in Justice court Ib. Oae ?reolact, Kendall County. *Oct. 26th, 1950, John Cohn vao arrested la Kond~ll County for huntIag vlthout a ll- aease* Vhe aomploint vao ill84 by 8111 Oar- ntt, Qu, Vardaa, and the a888 vao docketed as fa. l87G oa the Justice Doakot at Praciaat lo. oaa. herertter 8 varmnt vao loouod and ooat to A. 1. Hitrrel4er, Oaae Vardea la Boxsr oouaty. Nr. lklttrrlder rem04 tha warrant but 4ld aot take boa4 from Oohn or brlq hln to Booma, la Euotloo Proolaat So. Oao, but ao- orpto4 Cohn80 promIs* to appear b0r0m the Juo tlalto ODOI. llothlng more vao hear4 or Mr. Cohn uatll lOM tiw In lob-v, 1951, vhen llr. Oarrett request&d oa llloo vorroat. Hr. Utofeldor m&de contact olth HF. Cohn and Nr. Cohn lmmediatel~ oue up to Boerno o.nd plead guilty to the ohm-go. In tho oouroe or the oonvoroatloa Coha voo token to task by the Juotlao, Hon. t. A. Dreloo, oad Oohn endeavored to argue vlth the Court, oa the question or Cohnto failure to keep his promise in the hunting vlthout lloonoo oaoe. ‘Be juotloe, not viohlng to hear the . gaorablo Joe. L Dart, ?rgo 3 orgummato, (this V&O aa orgumoat bard oa Cohn’s ooatoatloa that ho ho4 dono all hm rho811440 la the premloeo) told Oohn that ho hh4n.t ohovn rmoh roopeot for thm oourt vhma hm rdhd to appmar briorm and that that amt oouplm4 vlth hlo attomt to argue the queotloa ooaotituted aoatempt 0r oourt ~4abm~5~~~4~ t0 riab hir r0r 00ntmt . Art1010 2386, Yeraoato Annotated Civil 8tmtutem reads, in part, as r0ii~0: “JUtlaeo of the pee08 shall oloo have paver: “1. 30 punish say party guilt7 of a oon- tempt of oourt by tine not to exoeod tveaty- five dolloro and by tiprttooa8eat not rxaeed- lag oao 4a.I.’ Oontempto or oourt are olooolflm4 as direot and l o ln- direct or aoaotruotlve, the test being vhethe~ the ooateapt voo orfarad vlthla or out of tho preoonam Of th0 oourt. this dir- tlnatloa lo lnportant from the proomdurol 8toadpolatI dlreot oontewto arm punlohoblo oumorIl~, vhIle oonotruotlve ooatellpto require a dlttwaat and looo draotlo proomoo. (rtx art0 mtiirr, 3 8. Y. (24) 4061 Lx parto, Robertson, 11 8. W. 6693. A oonterpt aorritted In thm prmoeaoo of thm aourt lo 4onoainatod a direct ooatempt. A ooaotruotlvm aoaterpt IO o8Id t0h p i l0t 40~0, not in th0 P~OO~O~ 0~ h4bwng 0r th0 00wt, but at l dietonce, an aat vhloh tmndo to belittle, to degrade, or obotruat, interrupt, prevent or ombarraoo the admlnlotratlon or juotlce. llx pa-to Vogler, 9 8. Y. (2d) 7331 Ex pa-to Dunoan, 182 9. w. 313I . Under another clao@itlc8tIoa, contempt8 are regarded as civil or orlrlnal. Thooo proceedings inotltuted oolol~ ror the purpooo of vlndIaatlng the dIgnIt of the oourt are orimlnal. From the facto etated In your letter It lo apparent that the oontompt vao oomnitted la the presence of the oourt, therefore, earning vlthin the dsflnltloa of a direct contempt. It further oppeoro that the oontempt proceeding voo instituted solely ror the purpose of rlndloatlng the dignity 05 the court and vould br olooolfIed l o a crialnol contoqpt lloo. fonorrble Joe, l. krt, hgo 4 VI quot. rm Tmxrm Jurlopru4eacr, Vol. 9, 9. 618, noa. 33, l0 r 0u o +0f 'Coat-t proome4lago are ewrtlr rmgarded am 0rIalnal la their nrtwo won vhmn lrlolag ln olvll rotlano. It Ia mid that oven in romrdlrl contuo9to 0r the mildest ter isthe looeatial 14~ 0r coa- o h a r a othorr ttmocy, vllful dloobedlonor of ordora and da- ore00 rde in th0 rdminiotration 0r juotioe. mm 0rrra00 10 against the oAmlnlotration 0r justloo ma4 rgelnot loolmtf, aa hmom It lr- 9lleo arimla8lltp. On this theory tho pro- oeedlngo should ooaSorm as nurly oo pooolblo to prooeedlngo in erlrlnol aooeo. l l l. But oontempt procoedlage 8~ not oriminal oooeo vithia all the rule8 end drllnltlono 0r crlainal lav. They ai’8 arid to be of a orlmlnal aotur4 beomuor they ore not properly oivll suits, and because they lnvolvo the idea of thr punishment of unauthorlomd sots. They bra netters au1 gemrio. lor is b oon- ttmpt of oourt M ofreaoe vlthln the moaning 0r the pens1 oode.* rho oaoa 0r Casey vs. state, 25 tex. Rep. 381, uoag othrr things, holds la efroot thmt a ooatmt or oourt lm not UL orrmaoe vithin the ~ouhg 0r the ?o~l code. Oontmmptm 8ro rttmro oui geaerlo, sad not orirlrul oaooo In the omnme ln vhiah orlmoo are treated b7 vrltmro upon ori8laoJ lrv. Whmy arm ma14 to be of a orhlaal natarm, bmcauao Thor uo not pro- 9erly oIvll oulto, and booauoo thq involvm thm Idea of the pualohment or uaauthorlred mote. we quota from the above nontloaed ~008 08 rOllOV8C l4 + +, If a contempt, then, IO not an QffeaOo rithia the meaning of the panol oodc, Che lava vh:ch regulate It are not repmlod by the code of criminal procedure. Ybat, then, 1s an ofrenso? As defined by the penal oode, it $10 III act or omlsslon forbidden by poaltive law, and to vhich lo annexed, on oonvlction, my punishment prescribed in this oode,’ A ooatempt oonnot COBOvithln this definltloa beoause no pualohaeat IO preoarlbed f’or it In thm oodm. BeoIdeo thlm, l oontellpt lo defined . loaonbl. 800. 8. D’rt, Puo 5 to k ‘a villful 4lom l4 or 4loobo4lonoo of b pub110 authorltT. 4 m0 b 0r 00at0m 4000 Zvhk Zih%0 pwvim 0r lit&r 0r tha 004m0. ft r00t0 upon its ovn 9oaullmlty’, u&4 vhllr it OUI not be o&l4 to bo otrlotlf vlthla thm mngr of thm 01~11 la+, it lo equal4 4lotlnat fwm lam nlat to orlmbr aad ptmlah- mats. Trtu v.Toa Slag, 9 JahBm. 395: 9h0 otatutos lm lllont sagudlng the praao4uro upon adtmmat ior oonte&, It lo said that swrormnoo uot bo ha4 to the oomon Iav an4 ouch lodifloatlono am arm roua4 in the pnoedont lvallablo. When one lo l dJu4gm4 to bo ln oonte@, the hot of aoatroveroy should be booortalno4 and drttmmiaa4, and thlo adju4laatlon should bo laterod In the rinut.8 of the Oourt, and a vrit or oomltment looue4 thereon, ror it has bman unlronly held that I8prloonment tor contempt vi11 not bo tol- orated oa a nre vrrbol order of the judge. (tax, Jur., Vol. g, p, 632; Rx arte MaOrav, 277 8. Y. 6$91 Xx parto Andrevs, loo 8, w. 376. P The ordinary fom Of ju4gmimtlo that the p8rty be cdttwl to jail until the fine an4 oooto are paid. (Rx part0 Robertson, 11 8. W, 669). Hovever, Artlole 2386, lupra, the statute under vhlah the procording vao brought door not author- irr the taxing of ooato la ouoh prooae4ing0, nor no othrr stat- ute that ve have been lbla to find luthorlo~o tha taxing or oooto vhen the prooeedlng lo under Artlole 2386. Therefore, ve onover your first qumatlon in the aog~tlva. As above stats& a oontmpt of oourt IO not ‘aa oiroaoe rlthln the ama* Of the Penal Cod., aad th mltbtuteo Oi the Oode of Crlmlnal Procedi~rooitrd in your letter, prwl4ing ror aomloolono, ire8 ror the attorney repreoentlqg the btatm, rtc. are not applicable, because they provide compensation ror oertsln oerrlceo rendered in c~oeo involving oftenses vlthin the rsanlng 0r th0 PIMI ~040. mmreroro, Tour second quaotlon lo reopcct- fully onavered in the nogatlre. TruotLng that the ioNgoing fully anovoro your inquiry, ve are Yours very truly APPROVEI-APR 12, 1941 ATTORREY OBRERU O? Tlixk8 ATTORNEY GEWRAL Or'TEXAS AWRB