{
  "id": 8718183,
  "name": "William H. HOWELL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howell v. State",
  "decision_date": "1974-10-21",
  "docket_number": "CR 73-123",
  "first_page": "134",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "257 Ark. 134"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "514 S.W.2d 723"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "252 Ark. 1078",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1629854
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/252/1078-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 Ark. 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723374
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/217/0661-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 4456,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.875,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.710235271955011e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49343494543504274
    },
    "sha256": "3510e4c45c5fe95a5b6255193a2e9364a39fa81bb39df0563a5e2cb259517354",
    "simhash": "1:1130e0fd3c810bdc",
    "word_count": 777
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:07.797047+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William H. HOWELL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is a petition by William H. Howell for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Miller Chancery Court finding Howell guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentencing him to serve ten days in jail. We stayed the enforcement of the order pending our review of the proceedings \u2014 a review that has been delayed by the court reporter\u2019s inability to transcribe the testimony promptly. The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of an offense not specified in the order requiring him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. We find the petitioner\u2019s contention to be sustained by the record.\nOn December 3, 1971, the trial judge, sitting as a chancellor on exchange, granted a divorce to the petitioner\u2019s wife and awarded her the custody of the couple\u2019s two-year-old daughter, Susan, with certain visitation rights in the father. Various post-decretal hearings appear to have been held. The present controversy arises from such a hearing held on July 31, 1973, at which the court approved a proposed trip that the petitioner Howell desired to take with his daughter.\nNo testimony was taken at that hearing. Opposing counsel had jointly conferred with their clients and had agreed upon detailed plans for the trip. It was expected that Mr. Howell and Susan would be gone for about twelve days, stopping at specified places in Oklahoma, at Fayetteville, Arkansas, and at Marshall, Missouri. It was contemplated that Howell\u2019s mother, who lived in Oklahoma, would travel with her son and granddaughter for about seven days, including a four-day stop at Fayetteville. Howell\u2019s older brother (a doctor) was also to join the group.\nThe trip was completed as planned, except that Howell\u2019s mother was unable to be absent from her job and consequently did not accompany the others, as expected. Upon Howell\u2019s return to Texarkana his former wife filed a motion that he be cited for contempt, on the ground that he had failed to make certain telephone calls that he had agreed to make and that Howell\u2019s mother had not been present for at least two days during the trip. In response to that motion the trial judge issued an order directing Howell to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt \u201cfor his failure to comply with the plan for visitation approved by the Court on the 31st of July, 1973.\"\nAt the hearing upon the contempt charge Howell explained that his mother had been unable to leave her job. Needless to say, that was not Howell's fault. He also testified, without contradiction, that at the joint conference with the lawyers, before the trip, he had explained that his mother had a new job and might not be able to make the trip. That possibility, however, was not explained by anyone to the court when the plans were approved.\nAt the close of the hearing the trial judge found Howell guilty of contempt, upon the sole ground that he had not told the court on July 31 that his mother might not be able to leave her job. The judge pointed out that Howell is an attorney and had a duty to be open with the court and not permit his own lawyer to mislead the court.\nWe cannot sustain the conviction for criminal contempt. Such a charge must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Blackard v. State, 217 Ark. 661, 232 S.W. 2d 977 (1950). The accused is entitled to be informed with reasonable certainty of the facts constituting the offense, so that he can present his defense. Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 252 Ark. 1078, 483 S.W. 2d 189 (1972).\nHere there was no notice, either in the motion for citation or in the show-cause order, that Howell was being charged with a failure to inform the court of his mother\u2019s possible inability to leave her work. Had that charge been made, Howell might have engaged additional counsel to act for him, so that his own attorney would be free to testify in his behalf, perhaps taking the blame himself. We cannot say that Howell was not prejudiced by being found guilty of a criminal charge of which he had no notice and therefore no fair opportunity to prepare his defense.\nThe writ of certiorari to review the trial court's order is granted, and the order is set aside.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tackett, Moore, Dowd & Harrelson, for petitioner.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: 0. H. Hargraves, Dep. Atty. Gen., for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William H. HOWELL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 73-123\n514 S.W. 2d 723\nOpinion delivered October 21, 1974\nTackett, Moore, Dowd & Harrelson, for petitioner.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: 0. H. Hargraves, Dep. Atty. Gen., for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0134-01",
  "first_page_order": 158,
  "last_page_order": 160
}