Miss. R. Crim. P. 32.2

As amended through March 21, 2024

Rule 32.2 - Direct Contempt

(a)Summary Imposition of Sanctions. The court against which a direct civil or criminal contempt has been committed may summarily impose sanctions on the person who committed it if:

(1) the presiding judge has personally perceived the conduct constituting the contempt and has personal knowledge of the identity of the person committing it;

(2) the contempt has interrupted the order of the court or interfered with the dignified conduct of the court's business; and

(3) the punishment imposed does not exceed thirty (30) days incarceration or a fine of One-Hundred Dollars ($100.00).

The court shall afford the alleged contemnor an opportunity, consistent with the circumstances then existing, to present exculpatory or mitigating evidence. If the court summarily finds and announces on the record that direct contempt has been committed, the court may defer imposition or execution of sanctions until the conclusion of the proceeding during which the contempt was committed.

(b)Order of Contempt. Either before sanctions are imposed, or promptly thereafter, the court shall issue a written order stating, or shall state on the record, that a direct contempt has been committed and specifying:

(1) whether the contempt is civil or criminal;

(2) the evidentiary facts known to the court from the judge's own personal knowledge concerning the conduct constituting the contempt and, regarding any relevant evidentiary facts not so known, the basis of the court's findings;

(3) the sanction imposed for the contempt;

(4) in the case of civil contempt, how the contempt may be purged; and

(5) in the case of criminal contempt, if the sanction is incarceration, a determinate term.

(c)Review and Record.

(1) Review. The contemnor may seek review by appeal or by writ of habeas corpus, if appropriate.

(2) Record. The appellate record in cases of direct contempt in which sanctions have been summarily imposed shall consist of:

(1) the order of contempt and, if the proceeding during which the contempt occurred was recorded, a transcript of that part of the proceeding; and

(2) any evidence admitted in the proceeding.

(d)No Summary Imposition of Sanctions. In any proceeding involving a direct contempt for which the court determines not to impose sanctions summarily, the judge shall issue a written order specifying the evidentiary facts within the personal knowledge of the judge respecting the conduct constituting the contempt and the identity of the contemnor. Thereafter, the proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to Rule 32.3 or Rule 32.4, whichever is applicable, and Rule 32.5 in the same manner as an indirect contempt.

Miss. R. Crim. P. 32.2

Adopted eff. 7/1/2017.

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.