People v. Javaras

Citations: 281 N.E.2d 670; 51 Ill. 2d 296; 1972 Ill. LEXIS 427Docket: 44030

Court: Illinois Supreme Court; March 30, 1972; Illinois; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Paul B. Javaras was found guilty of direct criminal contempt of court by the Cook County Circuit Court and sentenced to sixty days in jail. Javaras contested the summary nature of the contempt proceedings, claiming violations of his due process rights under State and Federal constitutions. The contempt charge arose from an incident on November 21, 1969, at the Chicago Civic Center, where Javaras assaulted Attorney Burton I. Zoub, who was representing Javaras's former wife in a divorce case. The incident occurred in a corridor filled with spectators, leading Zoub to report the attack to Judge Robert L. Massey. A contempt hearing was conducted later that day without formal charges, during which testimonies were presented, including that of Javaras, his former wife, and two attorneys who witnessed the altercation. Judge Massey concluded that Javaras's actions impeded the administration of justice and deemed him guilty of direct contempt. The court emphasized its inherent power to punish contempt to maintain authority and ensure proper judicial functioning. The Supreme Court of Illinois ultimately reversed the judgment.

The case addresses the procedural requirements for punishing criminal contempt of court, distinguishing between direct and indirect contempt. Direct contempt occurs in two forms: actions personally witnessed by the judge and those occurring in an integral part of the court, deemed to happen in the court's constructive presence. For direct contempt punishable by less than six months imprisonment, if observed by the judge, it can be summarily punished without a hearing. Conversely, if the contempt occurs in the constructive presence of the court, extrinsic evidence may necessitate a hearing, although proceedings can still be largely summary.

Indirect contempt involves acts not observed by the judge or occurring outside of the court's integral areas. In such cases, the alleged contemner must be notified of charges and given a chance to respond and present a defense, including the right to a jury trial when serious contempt is alleged.

In this instance, the defendant claims any contempt was indirect and that he was denied the associated procedural rights. The prosecution contends the incident occurred in a court-related area, justifying direct contempt proceedings. However, there is no evidence that the judge was aware of the incident during court proceedings, as he learned of it only afterward. The prosecution supports its position by referencing prior cases where actions taken outside the judge's presence were still considered as occurring in the court's presence, thus allowing direct contempt actions.

Determining whether contempt occurs 'in the presence of the court' involves both the physical location and the nature of the act. Previous cases referenced by the People involved conduct in distinct court-related settings, but the current case is more similar to precedents such as People v. Pomeroy, People v. Whitlow, and People v. McDonald, which involved disturbances outside the courtroom. In these cases, actions were deemed not to have occurred 'in the presence of the court,' thus not justifying summary direct contempt proceedings. The location of the incident on the twenty-first floor of the Civic Center, used for client-attorney discussions, does not qualify as part of the court for contempt considerations under existing rulings. Therefore, the defendant's actions were not in the court's presence, making direct contempt proceedings inappropriate. The court did not address whether the conduct was contemptuous or subject to criminal prosecution, concluding only that, if contemptuous, it constituted indirect contempt. The procedural requirements for indirect criminal contempt were not met, leading to the reversal of the circuit court's judgment.