Maryland case law › In Re Martin

In Re Martin

10 Md. App. 385 (1970) · Maryland Court of Special Appeals
Maryland Court of Special AppealsDisposition: DismissedMurphy, C.J.✓ Good law
HoldingAppellant Martin, a newspaper editor, was served with a citation for contempt of the Circuit Court for Allegany County for allegedly taking a photograph within the courthouse in violation of Rule 11 of the Rules of the Fourth Judicial Circuit.

Murphy, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On May 18, 1970, appellant Martin, a newspaper editor, was served with a citation for contempt of the Circuit Court for Allegany County for allegedly having taken a photograph within the courthouse in violation of Rule 11 of the Rules of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Maryland. 1 Appellant moved to dismiss the citation, claiming it to be an unconstitutional infringement of his First Amendment rights, viz., “a mere subterfuge [to] chill the Free Speech and Freedom of the Press of the Defendant.” Appellant also moved that the case, if not dis 387 missed, be tried before a jury. The court denied the motions. Appellant thereafter filed the instant appeal, claiming that the court’s refusal to grant him a jury trial was a denial of his absolute constitutional right to trial by jury.

The State moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there is no absolute constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal contempt proceeding and consequently the order appealed from was only interlocutory in nature and as such not immediately reviewable. Briefs were filed with us by the parties and we heard oral argument on the State’s motion to dismiss. In the circumstances of this case, we hold that appellant does not have an absolute constitutional right, either State or federal, to a jury trial and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. See Raimondi v. State, 8 Md. App. 468 .

In denying appellant’s motion for a jury trial, the court below held that there is no federal constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case, including cases of criminal contempt, where the offense charged is a “petty” one, i.e., an offense punishable by not more than six months imprisonment and a $500.00 fine. The court concluded that where, as in Maryland, “no maximum penalty is set for contempt, a Court may hear the case without a jury provided it does not impose a penalty in excess of six months in jail and a $500.00 fine.” By its decision denying appellant’s motion for a jury trial, the court

This is a preview of In Re Martin. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.