Weaver v. State

Hornby, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question posed by this appeal is whether or not the Municipal Court of Baltimore City, absent the signing of a formal order of contempt and the giving of reasonable time to make a defense, had jurisdiction to punish for a contempt arising out of the failure of a party defendant to appear at the postponed hearing of a case in obedience to an oral command given by the court at the time of postponement. In this proceeding, the plaintiff-appellee is the State of Maryland and the defendant-appellant is Maybelle Weaver. The de ⁶⁴² fendant and her mother were charged with separate violations of the housing regulations on or about the same time.

When the defendant, who had not been summoned, appeared in court on July 15, 1965 to represent her invalid mother, who had been summoned, the defendant sought to have the case against her heard with that of her mother. Apparently the case against the mother was heard but, because the case against the defendant was not on the calendar for that day, it was postponed until August 19, 1965 and the defendant was told to be present in court on that date. The defendant, however, who had a prior engagement on the same day that she wanted to keep, consulted an attorney and, on his advice, left the city and failed to appear in the municipal court as scheduled. When the defendant finally appeared in court on August 31, 1965 she was served with the summons theretofore issued on the housing charge against her and, according to the State, was also orally cited for contempt, for which she was tried forthwith and fined $25 and costs.

On appeal to the Criminal Court of Baltimore, the judgment of the municipal court was affirmed and the appeal to this Court followed. The power of the Municipal Court to punish for contempt is regulated by § 121 of Article 26 of the Code (1965 Cum. Sup.) providing that— “The Municipal Court shall have the same power as possessed by the several courts of this State to issue attachments and inflict summary punishments for direct contempts, committed in the presence of the Municipal Court, or so near to said court as to interrupt its proceedings, in the types of cases set forth in § 4 of this article. The procedure in such cases shall be as provided for direct contempts under § 5 of this article.” Section 4 of Article 26 provides in pertinent part that: “The power of the several courts of this State to issue attachments and inflict summary punishments for contempt of courts shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the following: * * *; (3) the disobedience or resistence by any officer of the said courts, ⁶⁴³ party, juror, witness or any other person or persons to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of the said courts; * * Procedurally, before it was repealed following the adoption of Subtitle P (Contempt) of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, § 5 of Article 26 provided in substance that the courts should sign a formal order and state therein the contempt alleged to have been committed and that the record in such cases should consist of the order of contempt, the affidavits filed by the party adjudged in contempt, the affidavits filed by the State’s Attorney in support of the action of the court and such testimony as was offered by the parties.

Maryland Rule P3 b provides in part that “where a direct contempt is committed, the court shall sign a written order to that effect,” but the rules of procedure, except by necessary implication in some cases, 1 do not apply to the Municipal Court of Baltimore City. On appeal to this Court, the appellant, in addition to claiming that the municipal court was without jurisdiction to give her a valid command to appear because she had not then been summoned in the housing violation case, also contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to' punish her because the alleged contempt was not committed in the presence of the court or so near to it as to interrupt its proceedings. On the other hand, the State, besides