In re Hogan

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In re Hogan

209 S.E.2d 880, 24 N.C. App. 51, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1926

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 25, 1974

DocketNo. 7414SC222

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 S.E.2d 880 (In re Hogan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hogan, 209 S.E.2d 880, 24 N.C. App. 51, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1926 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Appellant’s demand for a jury trial was properly denied. Blue Jeans Corp. v. Clothing Workers, 275 N.C. 503, 169 S.E. 2d 867 (1969). Evidence presented at the hearing on return of the show cause order fully supports the court’s findings of fact, and the only question presented by this appeal is whether those findings in turn support the judgment rendered. We hold that they do. G.S. 5-1 (4) is as follows:

[54]*54G.S. 5-1. “Any person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for contempt:

* * * #

“ (4) Willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued by any court.”

Respondent admitted she was present in court and heard Judge Clark order the jurors not to discuss the pending criminal case with anyone. She also admitted her relationship to the defendant in that case and her acquaintanceship with one of the jurors. Her defense was simply to deny she had made any telephone call to the juror. On competent evidence the court found to'the contrary. Her conduct in making the call was a direct violation of the court’s order given in open court while she was present and of which she was fully aware. We hold that that order was binding upon her as well as upon the jurors to whom it was expressly directed. The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PARKER, Judge.

Appellant’s demand for a jury trial was properly denied. Blue Jeans Corp. v. Clothing Workers, 275 N.C. 503, 169 S.E. 2d 867 (1969). Evidence presented at the hearing on return of the show cause order fully supports the court’s findings of fact, and the only question presented by this appeal is whether those findings in turn support the judgment rendered. We hold that they do. G.S. 5-1 (4) is as follows:

[54]*54G.S. 5-1. “Any person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for contempt:

* * * #

“ (4) Willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued by any court.”

Respondent admitted she was present in court and heard Judge Clark order the jurors not to discuss the pending criminal case with anyone. She also admitted her relationship to the defendant in that case and her acquaintanceship with one of the jurors. Her defense was simply to deny she had made any telephone call to the juror. On competent evidence the court found to'the contrary. Her conduct in making the call was a direct violation of the court’s order given in open court while she was present and of which she was fully aware. We hold that that order was binding upon her as well as upon the jurors to whom it was expressly directed. The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.E.2d 880, 24 N.C. App. 51, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hogan-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack