Chambers v. State

Per Curiam. Appellant, Jay Chambers, was found guilty of criminal contempt by a jury, Chief Judge J. Dudley Digges presiding, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, and was sentenced by the court to serve one year in the Maryland House of Correction, and appealed. He had been adjudged to be in contempt of court for failing to obey a court order to take a blood test in connection with a paternity proceeding. In its brief and oral argument before the court the State-moves that this appeal be dismissed on the grounds that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction in contempt cases.

Since the granting of the motion will be dispositive of the appeal, we will consider the motion to dismiss. The lower court, the State’s attorney and the appellant all’ considered this case to be in the nature of a criminal contempt. In support of its motion the State argues that, assuming this proceeding is of a criminal nature, it is not such a “conviction” as referred to in Maryland Code (1967 Cum. Supp.), Article-5, sec. 12 (Criminal Appeals) or non-capital “criminal case”' as stated in Maryland Code (1966 Repl.

Vol.), Article 26, sec. 130, over which this Court has appellate jurisdiction. Under the common law there was no appeal from the judgment or order of the court in contempt proceedings regardless of whether the contempt was criminal or civil in its nature, un ⁶⁴⁴ less specially authorized by statute. This was the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Kelly v. Montebello Park Co., 141 Md. 194 , 118 A. 600 (1922). There ■the Court in its opinion pointed out that since there is no statute in this State providing for appeals in contempt cases, the "common law would apply, and “the order appealed from is not subject to review by this Court.” The Court of Appeals reached -a similar conclusion in the later case of Ex Parte Sturm, 152 Md. 114, 124-126 , 136 A. 312 (1927), where the Court found 'that a judgment imposing a fine for criminal contempt in violating an order within the legitimate scope of the Court’s authority was not appealable, since there was no statute in force expressly providing for appeals in such cases.

Following the decision in Ex Parte Sturm, supra, the General Assembly enacted express legislation authorizing appeals to be taken in all contempt proceedings. Laws of Maryland 1927, Ch. 357. The statutory authorization for appeals in contempt cases is now set forth in Sections 18 and 7 (e) of Article 5 of the Maryland Code (1957) and (Cum. Supp. 1967).

Section 18 of Ar'ticle 5 (Code 1957) titled “Appeals in Contempt Cases” provides as follows: “Any person may appeal to the Court of Appeals from any order or judgment