Miss. R. Crim. P. 32.2

History

Comment: Under section (a), sanctions may be imposed immediately upon a finding of direct contempt or deferred to the conclusion of the proceeding. A delay between citation for contempt and the imposition of sanctions can provide a cooling-off period in the relations between the judge and the contemnor, and is particularly relevant in those circumstances when the contemnor is a lawyer representing a client on trial. Delay gives all parties a chance to reacquire their objectivity, and also allows the contemnor time to discuss the matter with an attorney and prepare a statement. Deferral of a sanction does not, however, affect its summary nature. The sanction remains summary in nature in that no hearing is required; the court simply announces and imposes the sanction at the conclusion of the proceeding. By limiting the use of summary disposition to those cases where the alleged contemptuous conduct was committed in the presence of the judge, subsection (a)(1) recognizes that the judge can determine the facts surrounding an allegation of contempt without a hearing only when the judge personally witnesses the contemptuous conduct. As to possible constitutional limitations on the summary imposition of sanctions, including the right to jury trial and the right to counsel, see, e.g., Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S. Ct. 2697, 41 L. Ed. 2d 897 (1974); Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S. Ct. 2687, 41 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1974); and Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S. Ct. 1477, 20 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1968). Because of these limitations, summary procedures are available only when necessary to preserve order (subsection (a)(2)), and when the potential punishment does not exceed thirty (30) days incarceration or a One-Hundred Dollar ($100.00) fine (subsection (a)(3)). See Miss. Code Ann. § 9-1-17. Section (a) does provide the contemnor with significant procedural rights, by requiring the court to “fin[d] and announc[e] on the record that direct contempt has been committed,” and permitting the contemnor, “consistent with the circumstances then existing, to present exculpatory or mitigating evidence.” Thus, the contemnor must be given notice of the charges and an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment. It should be recognized that the power to punish summarily for contempt is to be used cautiously, and is not an appropriate device to control every act of courtroom disrespect. Section (c) establishes methods of review for direct contempts when sanctions are imposed summarily. See, e.g., M.R.A.P. 21; Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-51-11 (criminal contempt judgments), 11-51-12 (civil contempt judgments). Section (d) limits the applicability of Rule 32.2 to direct contempts where sanctions are summarily imposed. Otherwise, the judge is required to issue a written order specifying the facts known to the judge to constitute the contempt, and the matter proceeds in the manner provided for indirect contempts under Rules 32.3 through 32.5.