☢ test - Í

In re: Omole, 258 Ga.App. 725, 574 S.E.2d 912 (December 5, 2002). An attorney’s “failing to respond to a calendar call or to the call of a case for trial disrupts court proceedings and interferes with the orderly administration of justice. Such a failure is a direct contempt for which the contemnor may be summarily punished. The trial court did not err in summarily adjudicating Omole to be in contempt and punishing him immediately.” Accord, Barlow (March 2, 1999), below. In re: Mauldin, 242 Ga.App. 350, 529 S.E.2d 653 (February 11, 2000). Criminal contempt holding based on failure to appear for jury duty affirmed. Mauldin (aka rapper Jermaine Dupri) consciously chose to go to New Jersey to perform a concert rather than appear for jury duty; he had his attorney call to seek a deferral, but left before the court could deny the request (after three prior waivers). “That he asked his secretary to ask his lawyer to ask the court for another waiver before he left town does not, as argued by him, negate the wilfulness of his act in disregarding his duty to appear absent obtaining the waiver.” Analogized to In re: Spruell , 227 Ga.App. 324, 489 S.E.2d 48 (1997) (attorney properly held in contempt where he was retained on a case Thursday, left the country on Friday for vacation knowing the case was set for trial Monday; attorney filed leave of absence request “but left town without knowing if the request had been granted.”). In re: Healy, 241 Ga. 259, 526 S.E.2d 597 (December 3, 1999). Attorney’s criminal contempt conviction reversed; counsel’s question to witness, intentionally introducing before the jury the fact that defendant wasn’t convicted at his first trial, didn’t support finding of criminal contempt under these circumstances. First trial resulted in hung jury. “In asking the objectionable question, Healy did not usurp the court's authority or interfere with the administration of justice. There is no indication from the record that the parties were instructed before Healy's question to refrain from mentioning the first trial, nor is there any indication that Healy repeated the offensive behavior. In other words, Healy did not defy any instruction from the court in asking the question; he was simply defending his client by trying to impeach [witness].” “While it is not always necessary that a trial court instruct or warn counsel before finding him in contempt, in this case the trial court should have warned Healy before making its finding.” Eldridge, writing for Blackburn and Ellington, dissents: “There is no requirement in the statute that a trial court ‘warn’ counsel or wait for counsel to ‘ defy ’an order of the court before the trial court may exercise control of misbehavior in the courtroom through contempt powers. OCGA § 15-1-4(a)(1).” Notes that, even without express instructions from the court not to mention the outcome of the first trial, the law has been clear for over 100 years that the jury shouldn’t be exposed to the results of a prior trial. For rule regarding contempt during courtroom advocacy, see In re: Jefferson (February 25, 2008), above. Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 516 S.E.2d 73 (May 10, 1999). In contempt action following divorce decree, trial court was within its discretion to find that husband’s maintenance of accidental death insurance did not satisfy decree’s requirement to maintain life insurance. “[I]n a contempt case, the trial court has wide discretion in determining whether court orders have been violated, and such determination will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Wrightson v. Wrightson, 266 Ga. 493, 496(4), 467 S.E.2d 578 (1996); Davis v. Davis, 250 Ga. 206, 207, 296 S.E.2d 722 (1982). The court has the authority to interpret and clarify a court order. Millner v. Millner, 260 Ga. 495, 497(2), 397 S.E.2d 289 (1990). The inquiry is whether ‘the clarification is reasonable or whether it is so contrary to the apparent intention of the original order as to amount to a modification.’ Davis at 207, 296 S.E.2d 722.” Barlow v. State, 237 Ga.App. 152, 513 S.E.2d 273 (March 2, 1999). 1. Trial court did not err in summarily holding counsel in direct contempt where counsel repeatedly refused court’s directive to proceed to trial. “‘During trial, a trial judge has the power, when necessary to maintain order in the courtroom, to declare conduct committed in his presence and observed by him to be contemptuous, and, after affording the contemnor an opportunity to speak in his or her own behalf, to announce punishment summarily and without further notice or hearing.’ Dowdy v. Palmour, 251 Ga. 135, 141- 142(2)(b), 304 S.E.2d 52 (1983); In re: Brant, 230 Ga.App. 283, 285(2), 496 S.E.2d 321 (1998). Further, direct summary criminal contempt that occurs ‘in the presence of the court and tends to scandalize it and hinder or obstruct the orderly processes of the administration of justice, the preservation of order and decorum in the court, etc. is exempt from the due process requirements of notice and hearing . [Cits.]’ (Emphasis in original.) In re: Hasty, 215 Ga.App. 349, 350, 450 S.E.2d 848 (1994). [Attorneys] Callahan and Harvey moved for a continuance, but failed to substantiate the grounds for it. Consequently the motion was denied, and they were directed to proceed to trial. Instead of proceeding to trial and then pursuing their appellate remedies, they chose to disobey a direct, lawful order of the court. The court warned counsel their behavior was contumacious and gave them an opportunity to be heard and to make a record. The court even gave counsel one last chance to redeem themselves and go forward to trial. They refused. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court was entitled to enter a summary order of direct contempt without a further hearing. 2. Judge was not required to recuse himself on hearing on direct contempt. “[A]lthough recusal may be required in some contempt proceedings, this requirement generally does not apply in cases of direct contempt. Cf. In re: Crane, 253 Ga. 667, 668(1), 324 S.E.2d 443 (1985).” Accord, Omole (December 5, 2002), above.