{
  "id": 2714244,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVE HANNA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hanna",
  "decision_date": "1976-04-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 13272",
  "first_page": "98",
  "last_page": "100",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 98"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "404 U.S. 553",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6175982
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/404/0553-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.E.2d 292",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "293"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. 2d 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5391168
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "78"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/51/0076-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 334,
    "char_count": 4645,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.89,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2196190272010927e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5978844712568184
    },
    "sha256": "daed2dfed91deb668280d436a5db48b56aca4fdd79a264c643357fb757d54e55",
    "simhash": "1:9f430cc809d4adec",
    "word_count": 776
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:56.744968+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVE HANNA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Steve Hanna, was charged with the offense of armed robbery in the Circuit Court of Macon County. In the third day of trial, while appearing pro se, defendant made an oral motion in which he requested the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for two prison inmates whom he wished to call as witnesses. While arguing the motion, defendant was found to be in direct criminal contempt of court. At a subsequent sentencing hearing before another judge, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 months and 20 days for the contempt conviction. Defendant appeals contending that his conduct was not contempt and that the sentence was excessive.\nDefendant made and argued the oral motion out of the presence of the jury but before spectators in the court room. The record indicates and the contempt order found that he was at times \u201cloud and boisterous.\u201d When the State\u2019s attorney objected to the form of defendant\u2019s request for the writ, defendant interrupted the State\u2019s attorney to object to the State\u2019s attorney\u2019s remarks. After a long rambling statement, claiming various grievances, defendant stated that he had an affirmative defense. He then stated:\n\u201cThe way things are going now my side ain\u2019t ever going to be heard \u2014 uh\u2014but I\u2019m going to get it \u2014 I\u2019m going to get it on the record. I\u2019m going to make a record, because I know what happened. This Court has messed up so much already it\u2019s pathetic.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe court then found the defendant to be in direct criminal contempt.\nA general definition of acts which constitute direct criminal contempt are those \u201cwhich are \u2018calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in its administration of justice, or to derogate from its authority or dignity, or bring the administration of law into disrepute.\u2019 [Citation.]\u201d\n(People v. Miller, 51 Ill. 2d 76, 78, 281 N.E.2d 292,293.) The conduct here could be said to \u201cembarrass\u201d the court and to \u201cderogate\u201d from its \u201cdignity.\u201d In In re Little, 404 U.S. 553,30 L. Ed. 2d 708,92 S. Ct. 659, however, a State court had similarly held a pro se defendant in contempt when he stated in an argument that the court was biased and had prejudiced the case and that the defendant was a political prisoner. On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed, holding the conduct insufficient to be contempt.\nIn Little the court noted that the words in question were not spoken in a loud and boisterous manner. Here there is no indication that the allegedly contemptuous words were spoken in such a manner but the defendant had clearly been loud and boisterous a few minutes earlier. The State\u2019s attorney had asked that the record show that the defendant was loud and boisterous and the defendant had apologized to the court stating that he got \u201ccarried away\u201d at times. The court responded \u201csometimes you do.\u201d\nThe essence of the Little opinion seems to be that an isolated, disparaging statement not made in loud voice or boisterous manner but offensive to the sensibilities of the judge, although embarrassing to the court and derogating from its dignity, is not contempt. We do not find the prior loud boisterous conduct of the defendant here to sufficiently distinguish this case from Little. The judgment of contempt in the instant case is, therefore, reversed.\nReversed.\nCRAVEN, P. J., concurs.\nMr. JUSTICE SIMKINS,\ndissenting.\nI dissent. I do not read the opinion In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 30 L. Ed. 2d 708, 92 S. Ct. 659, to hold that statements embarrassing to the court \u201d * and derogating from its dignity * * if made in a quiet tone of voice are, as a matter of law, not contemptuous. Defendant had conducted himself in a loud and boisterous manner during the hearing and there is nothing to show that the court\u2019s order was not predicated upon defendant\u2019s entire course of conduct during the hearing. Neither do I believe that Little stands for the proposition that one may be loud and boisterous, but reduce the decibels during one statement which directly offends the dignity of the court (as contrasted to the dignity of the judge) and tends to bring the entire process into disrepute, and consequently avoid being brought to book. I would affirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GREEN Mr. JUSTICE SIMKINS,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard J. Wilson and Bruce Stratton, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Basil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Jerry Finney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVE HANNA, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 13272\nOpinion filed April 1, 1976.\nSIMKINS, J., dissenting.\nRichard J. Wilson and Bruce Stratton, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nBasil G. Greanias, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Jerry Finney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0098-01",
  "first_page_order": 126,
  "last_page_order": 128
}