Sec. 4. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), when
a person is arraigned for a direct contempt in any court of record in
Indiana, no affidavit, charge in writing, or complaint is required to be
filed against the person.
(b) The court shall distinctly state the act, words, signs, gestures, or
other conduct of the defendant that is alleged to constitute the
contempt. The statement shall be reduced to writing either by:
(1) the judge making the statement; or
(2) by a reporter authorized by the judge to take down the
statement when the statement is made.
(c) A statement described in subsection (b), shall be substantially set
forth in the order of the court on the contempt, together with any
statement made in explanation, extenuation, or denial of the contempt,
which the defendant may make in response to the judge’s statement.
(d) The court shall pronounce judgment upon the statements set
forth under subsections (b) and (c), either:
(1) acquitting and discharging the defendant; or
(2) inflicting such punishment upon the defendant as may be
consistent with this chapter.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-7-7 part.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.43.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 2004–2019 · leading case:
Smith v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Smith v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 12× “2d 1156, 1163-64 (1979) (emphasizing that "[t]he requirement of a written statement describing the allegedly contumacious conduct is an important and fundamental step in an otherwise summary procedure") (interpreting Indiana Code section 34-4-7-7, the predecessor to Indiana Code…”
Dayron Bell v. State of Indiana, 1 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See I.C. § 34-47-2-4. But the parties agree that this appeal is moot because Bell has served his contempt sentence and has been released.”
Davidson v. State, 836 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2d at 95 ; see also Ind. Code § 34-47-2-4 . "The purpose of this power is to enable the court to protect itself against 'gross violations of decency and decorum.”
Pryor v. Bostwick, 818 N.E.2d 6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Further, Indiana Code Section 34-47-2-4 provides in relevant part that when a trial court makes a finding of direct contempt, the court "shall distinctly state the act, words, signs, gestures, or other conduct of the defendant that is alleged to constitute the contempt" and the…”
Troyer v. Troyer, 867 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Subsection (b) of Indiana Code Section 34-47-2-4 provides that the court “shall distinctly state the act, words, signs, gestures, or other conduct of the defendant that is alleged to constitute the contempt.”
Michael Leroy Tunis v. State of Indiana, 129 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “) This was an adequate opportunity to make any statement described in Indiana Code section 34-47-2-4. And the trial court properly reduced Tunis's response to writing when it found in its written order that "Tunis was given an opportunity to explain, testify and purge himself of…”
Bellamy v. State, 952 N.E.2d 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “221, and succeeded by Indiana Code section 34-47-2-4, the relevant portions of which appear substantially the same as its predecessor.”
Bobby Wine v. State of Indiana, No. 85A02-1307-CR-610 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2014).
· cites it 4× “Indiana Code Section 34-47-2-4, which governs contempt procedures, provides: “The court shall distinctly state the act, words, signs, gestures, or other conduct of the defendant that is alleged to constitute the contempt.”
Ind. Code § 34-47-2-4(b): 2 cases
Smith v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“2d 1156, 1163-64 (1979) (emphasizing that "[t]he requirement of a written statement describing the allegedly contumacious conduct is an important and fundamental step in an otherwise summary procedure") (interpreting Indiana Code section 34-4-7-7, the predecessor to Indiana Code…”
Michael Leroy Tunis v. State of Indiana, 129 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“) This was an adequate opportunity to make any statement described in Indiana Code section 34-47-2-4. And the trial court properly reduced Tunis's response to writing when it found in its written order that "Tunis was given an opportunity to explain, testify and purge himself of…”
Ind. Code § 34-47-2-4(c): 1 case
Michael Leroy Tunis v. State of Indiana, 129 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“) This was an adequate opportunity to make any statement described in Indiana Code section 34-47-2-4. And the trial court properly reduced Tunis's response to writing when it found in its written order that "Tunis was given an opportunity to explain, testify and purge himself of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.