The Arkansas Supreme Court halved a tardy lawyer's fines in a decision Thursday and said it did so because the constitution allows it, and not on the basis of a law passed by the Legislature.
In a 4-3 decision, the majority of justices said the state constitution gives courts the power to assess fines for criminal contempt of court as they see fit.
"The court was acting under its inherent power and was not limited by the General Assembly's classification of criminal contempt as a Class C misdemeanor," wrote Justice Robin Wynne in the majority opinion.
The court rejected an argument by attorney Jimmy Morris Jr. of Little Rock that he should have been fined no more than $500 -- the maximum for a violation of a Class C misdemeanor.
Morris had been fined $4,000 by a Drew County circuit judge after Morris showed up 38 minutes late for a first-degree murder trial in which he represented the defendant.
Morris said he had to drop his 8-year-old daughter off at summer camp and had to choose between leaving his child alone or being in court. He said he attempted to call but had poor cellphone reception. He was "hoping that the court would just overlook" him being a little late, according to the opinion.
He conceded that he knew he was going to be late when he dropped off his daughter.
Thursday's opinion quoted the circuit court order to Morris that he was fined because "you were late; because of what it cost the State, because it cost your client his right to be tried today; because of the time it cost the Court; and the inconvenience to the State, and all these witnesses, which could have been easily avoided, the Court does believe that you are in willful contempt."
However, the high court ruled that the purpose of the contempt punishment would be accomplished by a lesser fine and reduced the amount to $2,000.
In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Karen Baker wrote that she would reduce the fine to $500 because the punishment for contempt is a Class C misdemeanor. Justice Shawn Womack signed onto her opinion.
In a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Josephine Hart wrote that the General Assembly does have the power to regulate criminal contempt that occurs outside a courtroom.
"Obviously, as noted by the majority, all of Mr. Morris's contempt occurred when he was not in the courtroom," she wrote. However, he could have been ordered to pay restitution with a proper hearing, she said.
Metro on 04/28/2017