{ "id": 5374325, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. C. N. (Bill) MORRIS, Defendant, Will Harrison, Respondent-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Morris", "decision_date": "1965-10-04", "docket_number": "No. 7684", "first_page": "475", "last_page": "488", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "75 N.M. 475" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "406 P.2d 349" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "43 N.M. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568268 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/43/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 A.L.R. 142", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 P. 1028", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 N.M. 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8841885 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/29/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 N.M. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4735096 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/25/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 P. 751", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.M. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4732591 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/25/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 P. 692", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 N.M. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4662990 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/8/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 Miss. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1354121 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/241/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 P. 2d 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Cal.App.2d 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4465450 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/85/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 N.E.2d 332", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill.2d 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5359445 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S.E.2d 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Va. 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 2063479 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/195/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 S.E. 2d 183", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 Ga.App. 833", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga. App.", "case_ids": [ 1600167 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/106/0833-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E.2d 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 Ga. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 255282 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/209/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 Colo. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Colo.", "case_ids": [ 78650 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/colo/139/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 A.2d 497", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 Md. 300", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 2219841 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/193/0300-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 F.2d 676", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1226045 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/186/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 L.Ed.2d 569", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 6168221 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/370/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 U.S. 494", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1148067 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/341/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 U.S. 254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 379234 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/376/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 U.S. 402", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1484712 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/247/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 U.S. 33", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6136740 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/313/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 U.S. 47", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3688385 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/249/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 U.S. 367", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157728 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/331/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 U.S. 331", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 377082 ], "weight": 5, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/328/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 U.S. 252", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6139418 ], "weight": 5, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/314/0252-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1347, "char_count": 29109, "ocr_confidence": 0.648, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.456334542266928e-08, "percentile": 0.3980952171342808 }, "sha256": "bf8678bef3485c9ca817a72ede90e7468480e2482f4f1c67040c04c50b808520", "simhash": "1:92fef84a6a94a9f0", "word_count": 4904 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:05.656930+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "CARMODY, C. J., and CHAVEZ, NOBLE, and MOISE, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. C. N. (Bill) MORRIS, Defendant, Will Harrison, Respondent-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "COMPTON, Justice.\nThe respondent, Will Harrison, appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of criminal contempt by reason of the publication of certain articles during the pend-ency of the case, State of New Mexico v. Morris. He was sentenced to serve ten days in the Dona Ana County jail and fined $250.00, the fine being suspended upon payment of $250.00 in court costs.\nC. N. (Bill) Morris, an assistant district attorney at Carlsbad, New Mexico, was charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter in the killing of five people in Eddy County on June 22, 1963, while driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Upon the voluntary recusal of judges of the Fifth Judicial District, the Honorable Paul Tackett, Judge of the Second Judicial District, was designated to hear and try the cause, after which change of venue was granted from Eddy County to Dona Ana County. On November 6, 1963, Morris pleaded guilty to the charge against him. After hearing character witnesses on behalf of Morris, the court entered the following order dated December 5, 1963:\n\u201cIT IS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT AND IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT that sentence be deferred for a period of twelve (12) months and that the Defendant, C. N. (Bill) Morris be placed on probation for said period' of time and is required to report to the Probation Officer in Carlsbad, New Mexico once each month, in person, for said 12 month period and at the end of said 12 month period said Probation Officer submit a report to the Court for his consideration.\n\u201cIT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that said Defendant, C. N. (Bill) Morris, be assessed a Fine of $500.00 which is suspended at the pleasure of the Court and on the condition of Defendant\u2019s good behavior and further that he pay $500.00 court costs.\u201d\nThe appellant has been the author of a column on public affairs widely circulated in the newspapers in New Mexico since 1952. On January 24, 1964, counsel who represented Morris filed an affidavit charging Harrison with contempt of court by reason of six articles appearing in his column between the dates of November 12, 1963 and January 22, 1964, the first of which appeared six days following the plea of guilty by Morris.\nThe respondent admitted authorship of the articles but denied that any of the statements and publications as charged by the affidavit presented clear and present danger to the administration of justice in New Mexico, or that they constituted contempt of court. He further averred that the columns constituted fair comment or, at the least, just criticism of the acts of that court or of the courts of New Mexico; that all of the statements contained in his columns were true, and that the order to show cause was an attempt to infringe upon his right to make and publish such comments, constituting a violation of his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and of the press.\nThe six articles forming the basis of the appellant\u2019s conviction of criminal contempt follow:\nNovember 12, 1963:\n\u201cSANTE FE \u2014 C. N. (Bill) Morris, the assistant district attorney at Carlsbad who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the killing of five people while driving intoxicated and was given a suspended fine and a one-year deferment of sentence, will not lose his license to practice law in New Mexico, according \u2022to a Sante Fe Authority on disbarment.\n\u201cThe official who asked that his name not be used referred to state law \u2022calling for disbarment of an attorney convicted of a \u2018felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.\u2019\n\u201cThe official said that the Morris plea of guilty to the \u2018unlawful killing \u2022of five\u2019 while \u2018driving while intoxicated\u2019 probably did not involve \u2018moral turpitude.\u2019\n\u201cDRIVER PERMIT IS SUSPENDED\n\u201cMorris, who resigned as assistant \u2022district attorney shortly after the June accident in which an Eddy County farm worker, Gregorio Molina, his wife and three children were killed and five other children injured, has lost his \u25a0driver license for the time being, and presumably certain civil rights that are \u2022denied persons convicted of a felony.\n\u201cHis \"surprise plea of guilty before Judge Paul Tackett of Albuquerque knocked out an elaborate prosecution case that had been worked up by state police and investigators for the attorney general.\n\u201cHAD STATEMENTS ON LIGHTS, SPEED\n\u201cThe investigators had a statement from Mrs. Jimmie House, a store operator at Atoka in Eddy County, that the Molina car had tail lights operating on the night of the accident.\n\u201cA 12-year-old son of the Molinas who survived the accident\" gave a statement that the Molina\u2019s 1953 sedan was traveling at about 50 miles an hour when it was struck from the rear by the Morris car.\n\u201cThere had been much speculation that the Molina car was operating without tail lights and was moving at a very low speed in the 55-mile-an-hour speed zone where the accident occurred.\n\u201cPOLICE OFFICER REFERS TO SPEED\n\u201cState Police Officer Jim B. Davis who reported the Morris car went over and through the Molina car and traveled 636 feet before coming to a stop, said in a signed statement that \u2018it had to be going at a very tremendous speed.\u2019\n\u201cThere was no estimate from officers in the attorney general\u2019s file on \u2022 the MPH speed of the car.\n\u201cCARLSBAD GROUP SUPPORTS MORRIS\n\u201cOther statements gathered by the attorney general were from officers, motorists, and employees of two Artesia liquor establishments concerning Morris\u2019 condition before and after the accident.\n\u201cHe wasn\u2019t hurt in the accident.\n\u201cHalf a dozen of the most respected people in Carlsbad attested to Morris\u2019 usual sobriety and his good reputation before Judge Tackett passed sentence.\n\u201cHe was fined $500 and fine suspended and was then assessed $500 court costs.\n\u201cHe was ordered to report monthly to the Carlsbad probation officer and to appear before the court in one year for sentencing.\n\u201cMOST ANTICIPATED SOME TIME IN JAIL\n\u201cThe Tackett order surprised even some who were close to the Morris defense.\n\u201cThey thought he would get at least token imprisonment to be served, perhaps, in a county jail. The attorney general, the prosecutor in the case, did not recommend clemency.\n\u201cMUCH COMMENT ABOUT CASE\n\u201cNaturally, the lawyers\u2019 handling of a lawyer in trouble \u2014 in this case a public prosecuting lawyer. \u2014 has set off wide spread comment.\n\u201cFrom the tone of two letters I got from Artesia and Carlsbad one would think I was to blame for what the court did. There has been much talk about the case also among legislators gathered here for the special session.\n\u201cSIMILAR CASE IN SANTA FE\n\u201cThe court action in the Eddy County case is particularly interesting in Santa Fe County where three persons were killed early this month when their car was struck from the rear by an allegedly drunk driver.\n\u201cThe main difference in the cases is that the people killed in the Santa Fe accident were of a prominent family and the driver of the other car was a humble country fellow.\n\u201cWhat the court does with the humble Santa Fe driver who killed the prominent people will go on the record with what the court did with the prominent driver who killed humble people.\u201d\nJanuary 2,1964:\n\u201cWARDENS SUFFER TAP ON WRIST\n\u201cTwo local game wardens who were employed to arrest and prosecute saps, who viiated [sic] hunting rules were caught themselves shooting deer illegally and were punished with $50 fines and 20-day vacations without pay.\n\u201cThe two, Carl L. Farnsworth, $345 a month, and R. K. Dunlap, $420, were arrested by their superior, Marion F. Embry of Las Cruces, and both pleaded that they didn\u2019t know they were violating the law.\n\u201cFarnsworth is a rookie of about a year in the department. Dunlap has been in for about 15 or 20 years, time in which he might have been expected to learn the rules.\n\u201cKILLER OF FIVE GETS NOTHING\n\u201cThe game department in its charitable attitude towards its law enforces might have been guided by the recent action in the court of District Judge Paul Tackef [sic] in which C. N. (Bill) Morris, Carlsbad assistant district attorney who was employed with public money to prosecute and jail law offenders, pleaded guilty to killing five people while drunk driving and got a suspended fine and a deferred sentence.\n\u201cThe arrest and the guilty please [sic] of the two local game wardens were not reported in the manner followed by the game department when private citizens get in such trouble.\u201d\nJanuary 12, 1964:\n\u201cSANTA FE \u2014 A question asked in this space Nov. 12 has been answered by the Santa Fe district court.\n\u201cIn November the assistant district district attorney at Carlsbad pleaded guilty to manslaughter in killing five people while drunk driving and got a suspended fine and a deferred sentence.\n\u201cThis was lawyer C. N. (Bill) Morris who ran into the rear of a car driven by farm labarer [sic] Gregorio Molina and killed five of the Molina family and orphaned five more.\n\u201cThe lawyer admitted he was drunk and Judge Paul Tackett, a lawyer, gave him a sentence which amounted to paying the court cost and being put on good behavior for a year.\n\u201cSIMILAR CASE IN SANTA FE\n\u201cAt the time of the Morris trial there was pending in the Santa Fe district court a case against Elirio Trujillo, 20, of Santa Cruz, chargira [sic] him with manslaughter in the killing of three people while drunk driving.\n\u201cLike Morris of Carlsbad, he hit the rear of a car killing three members of the prominent W. W. Lamoreaux family of Santa Fe, and like Morris admitted he was drunk.\n\u201cTHE QUESTION AND ANSWER\n\u25a0 \u201cWhat will they do with the humble Trujillo youth who killed three prominent people after turning loose the prominent lawyer who killed five prominent [humble] people? .\n\u201cThe answer came this week when District Judge Sam Montoya of Santa Fe sentenced Trujillo to one to five years in prison.\n\u201cMORE SERIOUS TO KILL A COW\n\u201cTrujillo can do his one to five years in six months with good behavior.\n\u201cThe only thing the two cases seem to prove is that mass killing by drunk drivers is not a very serious offense in New Mexico, with killing prominent people being slightly more serious than killing humble ones. Kill a cow, drunk or sober, and see what you get.\u201d\nJanuary 13, 1964:\n\u201cHIGH COURT ASKS FOR MORRIS RECORD .\n\u201cThe state supreme court has called for a transcript of the trial of C. N. (Bill) Morris, assistant ' district attorney at Carlsbad who pleaded guilty to killing five members of a farm worker\u2019s family while drunk driving and was given a suspended fine and deferment of sentence by District Judge Paul Tackett of Albuquerque.\n\u201cThe- \u25a0 court \"also asked for all material. gathered by the attorney general in preparation for prosecuting the case.\n\u201cCOURT CONSIDERS JERKING LICENSE\n\u201cThe court apparently is looking into the possibility of disbarring the lawyer who resigned as assistant district attorney immediately after the accident.\n\u201cSome Santa Fe lawyers have been telling that Morris may keep his lawyer license because his offense did not involve \u2018moral turpitude\u2019 as cited in the law. But that doesn\u2019t seem to be the unamimous [sic] opinion of the justices.\n\u201cOTHERS RECEIVED TIM\u00c9 IN PRISON\n\u201cA few days ago-Elirio Trujillo of Santa Cruz, who killed three while drunk driving in a rear end collision almost exactly like that in which Morris was involved, pleaded' guilty and was given orte to five years in prison by District Judge Sam Montoya.\n\u201cA few years back J. R. Roden, a Clovis druggist, got drunk and drove his car into a residence killing two people in bed and got a year in prison.\n\u201cAG\u2019S OFFICE IS CRITICIZED\n\u201cThe Morris case is still sticky more than two months after the trial.\n\u201cTHe attorney general, who was designated -to' prosecute the case, and Asst. Atty. Gen. E. E. (Chano) Chavez have been under criticism for the court\u2019s soft treatment of the public prosecutor. They, it should be explained, had nothing to do with the case after the lawyer pleaded guilty.\n\u201cDISTRICT ATTORNEY WAS NOT CALLED\n\u201cThere has also been a round of comment, about witnesses who were called by the prosecution before it was known that the lawyer would plead guilty.\n\u201cDist. Atty. Pat Hanagan, Morris\u2019 boss, Asst. Dist. Attys. Joe Walton of Lovington, and Jack Love of Loving-ton, rode with Morris from Santa Fe to Roswell on the day of the accident but only Love was called to testify if there was any drinking going on, and that only at the last hour when an official practically demanded that there be testimony regarding the trip from Santa Fe to Roswell.\u201d\nJanuary 16, 1964:\n\u201cBAR ' COMMITTEE PROBES MORRIS\n\u201cThe cap\u00edtol has heard that the secretly operating ethics and grievance committee- .of the state bar association has ordered C. N. (Bill) Morris, former assistant district attorney at Carlsbad, to\u2019show cauSe why his license' to .practice law should not be revoked. '''\n\u201cMorris pleaded guilty to killing five members of a farm worker\u2019s family while drunk driving near Artesia last summer.\n\u201cHe was given a suspended fine and deferment of sentence by Dist. Judge Paul Tackett of Albuquerque.\n\u201cSUPREME COURT ALSO LOOKING\n\u201cEarlier, the supreme court, which rules on the disbarment of lawyers, had requested a transcript of the Morris trial and a record of evidence prepared for the trial by the attorney general and state police.\n\u201cIf the bar should recommend disbarment the case would be heard by the supreme court.\n\u201cMorris resigned as assistant district attorney but has continued in law practice since pleading to the charge last November.\n\u201cMORAL TURPITUDE CITED IN LAW\n\u201cThe law, 18-1-17 of the state statutes, says \u2018an attorney may be disbarred or suspended by the supreme .court * * * his conviction of felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.\u2019\n\u201cOne Santa Fe authority on the law said shortly after Morris\u2019 conviction that the particular charge against him did not involve \u2018moral turpitude,\u2019 whatever that is, and that his license to practice law would not he disturbed. That theory seems to have fallen into doubt and the lawyer\u2019s right to practice is now under investigation in two quarters.\n\u201cPEN A BAD PLACE FOR PROSECUTOR\n\u201cSeveral prominent Car-sbad [sic] people testified that Morris was of good character before Judge Tackett pronounced sentence.\n\u201cAt one point in the pre-sentence hearing it was said that a grave injustice might be done in sending the prosecuting attorney to the state penitentiary where he would be among criminals that he had sent to prison.\u201d January 22, 1964:\n\u201cSEVEN MONTHS LATE ON MORRIS LICENSE\n\u201cSANTE FE \u2014 State Police records show that the driver\u2019s license of C. N. (Bill) Morris, former assistant district attorney at Carlsbad, was suspended last June 24 after he had killed five members of a farm laborer\u2019s family while drunk driving, but the lawyer\u2019s license wasn\u2019t actually picked up until the seventh of this month.\n\u201cClyde Anderson, traffic safety officer at Roswell, reported on January 7, to his Santa Fe headquarters that he had been told by Carlsbad Police that Morris had been observed operating an automobile and on the same, day he had State Police pick up the Morris driving permit.\n\u201cTHOUGHT LAWYER HAD THE PERMIT\n\u201cTraffic Safety Administrator D. K. Kelly said that he understood the Morris license was being held by his attorney and that it was picked up as soon as it was learned that Morris had the permit.\n\u201cMorris who received a suspended fine and deferment of sentence from District Judge Paul Tackett on his plea of guilty is due to get his license back in June upon passing the usual driver test.\n\u201cThe Supreme Court and the Ethics and Grievance Committee of the State Bar Association have started looking into the propriety of Morris retaining his state license to practice law some two months after he pleaded guilty in Tackett\u2019s court.\n\u201cLAWYER CRITICAL OF CASE HANDLING\n\u201cThere has been widespread comment about the no fine, no jail judgment of the court in handling the fellow lawyer.\n\u201cAmong the most critical ar\u00e9 lawyers themselves who fear \"that-the profession is being made to appear as a- favored group in court.\u201d\nThe appellant testified substantially that over the period of time covered between the first and last article in question he devoted only 5.7% of his column to the Morris case, and that he wrote on the basis of continuing developments of public interest in that case. He further stated that he felt that the conduct of public officials who have violated the law, and their consequent treatment before public tribunals, is a subject of wide public interest. At the conclusion of the trial the court found the respondent guilty of contempt. Judgment was entered accordingly, the pertinent portions of which read:\n\u201cThat the press releases by the respondent occurred during the pendency of the Bill Morris case, and that the defendant in that case will not be sentenced and the case concluded until the month of November, 1954, or thereafter.\n\u201cThe Court finds the respondent, Will Harrison, guilty of' criminal contempt of the court by the publication of articles appearing in the Affidavit.\u201d\nThe appellant claims that his constitutionally protected rights of free speech and press have been violated, that the trial court erred in determining that the Morris case was pending at the time his articles were published and that it erred in considering evidence of contempt not contained in the affidavit. The appellee, on the other hand, asserts that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the publications in question constituted a clear and present danger to the administration of justice in the pending case of State v. Morris and, therefore, the conviction should stand.\nIt is readily apparent from the record and the able briefs of counsel and of amici curiae that the crucial issue presented, which should be squarely met, is whether, as a matter of law, the articles set forth, under the circumstances of their publication, presented a clear and present danger to the fair and orderly administration of justice in a pending case. In resolving this issue we will assume, for the salce of argument only, and contrary to the second point raised by the appellant, that State v. Morris was a pending case at the time of the publication of the articles. Consideration of that point, as well as a third point raised, will depend upon our disposition of what we have concluded to be the real and important issue.\nIn criminal contempt cases involving out-of-court statements and publications, where it is charged that the fundamental right of freedom of speech and of the press secured by the Fi-rst Amendment to the Constitution has been- violated, the ever-present question is, where does the right of free speech or of the press end and the right to punish for contempt begin? Recognizing that these contempt charges must be viewed in the light of basic constitutional guaranties for the purpose of fully protecting the equally fundamental rights of freedom of speech and of the press, and the power of the courts to protect the interests of litigants before them in pending judicial proceedings, we think the Supreme Court of the United States has laid down certain controlling principles of law to be applied to the instant case.\nIn view of the exhaustive consideration and treatement given by the Supreme Court of the United States to the various issues presented in this class of cases, including the history of the contempt power of the courts, state and federal, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the importance of striking a balan-'e compatible with upholding equally basic rights without one infringing upon the other, it would only be repetitious for us to attempt here to restate in our own words the underlying reasoning embodied in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Suffice it to say that the courts of New Mexico are limited by the United States Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of the extent of protection afforded by the First Amendment. Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192; Pennekamp v. State of Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 66 S.Ct. 1029, 90 L.Ed. 1295; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546.\nIn Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470, Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking of constitutional guaranties of the First Amendment, stated that the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. He continued :\n\u201c * * * The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. * * * \u201d\nSubsequently, in Bridges v. State of California, supra, where the substantive evil sought to be averted by contempt proceedings was the direct interference with or the influencing of the orderly and impartial administration of justice, again the \u201cclear and present danger\u201d test was applied. The court held that under the circumstances of each' case the substantive evil must be \u201cextremely serious and the degree of im\u2018m\u00ednence extremely high before utterances can be punished.\u201d This decision followed Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. 1172, which overruled Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402, 38 S.Ct. 560, 62 L.Ed. 1186, where it had'been held that the constitutional freedom of the press will not protect a publisher of newspaper articles concerning a pending c\u00e1se where the articles merely \u201ctend to obstruct\u201d the administration of justice.\nT-hq \u201cclear and present danger\u201d test was reapplied .and reaffirmed in Pennekamp v. State of Florida, supra, and Craig v. Harney, supra. In the Harney case, the court emphasized that the danger sought to be guarded 'against \u201cmust not be remote or even ' probable; it'must immediately imperil/\u2019 \"In addition, it was held in the above cases'that \u2019absent a clear and present danger even the -possibility of engendering disrespect\u2019 for the judiciary as the result of published criticisms of a judge, or of his inclinations and actions, is not such a substantive evil as will justify impairment of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and press.\nFor other cases in which the principles of \u201cclear and present danger\u201d or \u201cserious and imminent-peril\u201d have been discussed at some length,- or applied, or both, see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686; Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed.1137; Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. ;375, 82 S.Ct.; 1364, 8 L.Ed.2d 569; Smotherman v. United States, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 186 F.2d 676; Baltimore Radio Show v. State, 193 Md. 300, 67 A.2d 497; In Re Jameson, 139 Colo. 171, 340 P.2d 423; McGill v. State, 209 Ga. 500, 74 S.E.2d 78; Crudup v. State, 106 Ga.App. 833, 129 S.E. 2d 183; Weston v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 175, 77 S.E.2d 405; People v. Hathaway, 27 Ill.2d 615, 190 N.E.2d 332; Turkington v. Municipal Court, 85 Cal.App.2d 631, 193 P. 2d 795. Compare Evers v. State, 241 Miss. 560, 131 So.2d 653. See also Vol. 44, No. 3, Nebraska Law Review, pp. 622 et seq.; Vol. 28, Columbia Law Review, pp. 401, 525; and Goldfarb, The Contempt Power (1963), pp. 187 et seq.\nExcept as hereinafter noted in the cited cases from this jurisdiction involving charges of contempt by publications, we perceive no inconsistencies in the underlying principle involved. As early as 1895 it was recognized in In re Hughes, 8 N.M. 225, 43 P. 692, that parties to a pending case have a constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in court, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by newspaper dictation or popular clamor. State v. New Mexican Printing Co., 25 N.M. 102, 177 P. 751, held that it is the party \u2022 litigant in a pending case, and not the individual court, that is to be protected and said:\n\u201c* * * It is not the personal, dignity, nor the personal feelings, of the co.urt -that call into operation this arbitrary power. Attacks upon the character and conduct - of a judge as an individual may be so persistent and so outrageous as to amount to a contempt, but is only when the attack upon the judge as an individual will tend to influence, intimidate, or embarrass him to such an extent as to obstruct the due administration of justice. Undue praise, or fulsome flattery may have the same effect, and under some circumstances might amount to contempt, the same as unwarranted criticism.\nSee also State v. Kayser, 25 N.M. 245, 181 P.278; State v. Magee Pub. Co., 29 N.M. 455, 22.4 P. 1028, 38 A.L.R. 142; and State v. McAllister, 43 N.M. 514, 96 P.2d 1.\nHowever, insofar as the use of the contempt power in this jurisdiction has been based upon comments that merely \u201ctend to\u201d interfere with or \u201ctend to\u201d obstruct the administration of justice in a pending case, without a determination of whether the claimed inherent tendency to obstruct amounted to a clear and present danger or imminent peril that the evil result may be accomplished, those cases can no longer serve as precedents in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States since Bridges v. State of California, supra.\nApplying the foregoing principles, we conclude that the appellee has failed to sustain its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a cleat and present danger, \u00f3r imminent peril, to the administration of justice in the case of State v. Morris. The articles here.:,were concerned with action already taken-, by the court in deferring the sentencing'of .Morris for one year and suspending his fine upon the condition of his good behavior and the payment of an equal amount in-court costs. The only substantive evil Upon which the contempt charges possibly could be based, or seek to avert, would be the direct interference with or influence on'the court of the articles when, at the expiration of the deferment period, Morris would \u00e1gain appear for sentencing or other disposition of the charge against him. We find rio reference to, or speculation regarding future action by the court was made in the articles. We find no' proof of a clear and present danger or imminent peril of that substantive evil. Nor is there anything in the record to indicate that the trial court so concluded. As stated in Pennekamp v. State of Florida, supra, \u201c * * * the danger under this record to fair judicial administration has not the clearness and immediacy necessary to close the door of permissible public comment. * * * \u201d' \u25a0 The articles here for the most part were criticism of the actions of the trial1 court,1 and naturally were distasteful to him in the furtherance of justice; nevertheless, we think what was said- in Smotherman v:' United States, supra, is equally appropriate here\u2019:! ,.\n\u201c * * * While the remarks were, of course, vexatious- and irritating, to say that they had the effect of intimidating, coercing or influencing the judge from his course of duty is to fail to accord him that strength of character and judicial fortitude common to the judiciary and so vividly examplified by the long record of his judicial acts. *. sjs * \u00bb\nIt is not amiss to say here that there is a limit beyond which the press may not successfully assert constitutional immunity. In the exercise of good taste and sound judgment in order to avoid what is termed \u201ctrial by newspaper,\u201d which may well lead to a miscarriage of justice, no less stamina and fairness is expected of the press in preserving its fundamental rights than of a judge in preserving the fundamental rights of litigants in a pending case. The lowering of standards by the press to just within the limits of constitutional immunity is fraught with danger and should be zealously avoided.\nThe conclusion reached obviates our determination of the other points raised for a reversal. The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside the judgment, and it is so ordered.\nCARMODY, C. J., and CHAVEZ, NOBLE, and MOISE, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "COMPTON, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, C. M. Neal, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.", "William C. Marchiondo, David R. Gallagher, Timothy P. Woolston, Arturo G. Ortega, Rolando J. Matteucci, Gene E. Franchini, David W. King, Courtney Vallentine, Irving E. Moore, Joseph L. Smith, Harry E. Stowers, Fred M. Calkins, Jr., Lorenzo A. CHAVEZ, Albuquerque, amici curias for appellee.", "Gilbert, White & Gilbert, William Booker Kelly, Santa Fe, for appellant.", "Seth, Montgomery, Federici & Andrews, Santa Fe, Arthur B. Hanson, Calvin H. Cobb, Jr., Washington, D. C., amici curiae for American Newspaper Publishers Ass\u2019n.", "Seth, Montgomery, Federici & Andrews, Santa Fe, amici curiae for New Mexico Press Ass\u2019n.", "Seth, Montgomery, Federici & Andrews, Santa Fe, Royall, Koegel & Rogers, New York City, amici curias for American Soc. of Newspaper Editors.", "James D. Sidwell, Paul A. Phillips, William C. Schaab, Albuquerque, amici curiae for New Mexico Civil Liberties Union." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "406 P.2d 349\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. C. N. (Bill) MORRIS, Defendant, Will Harrison, Respondent-Appellant.\nNo. 7684.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nOct. 4, 1965.\nEarl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, C. M. Neal, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.\nWilliam C. Marchiondo, David R. Gallagher, Timothy P. Woolston, Arturo G. Ortega, Rolando J. Matteucci, Gene E. Franchini, David W. King, Courtney Vallentine, Irving E. Moore, Joseph L. Smith, Harry E. Stowers, Fred M. Calkins, Jr., Lorenzo A. CHAVEZ, Albuquerque, amici curias for appellee.\nGilbert, White & Gilbert, William Booker Kelly, Santa Fe, for appellant.\nSeth, Montgomery, Federici & Andrews, Santa Fe, Arthur B. Hanson, Calvin H. Cobb, Jr., Washington, D. C., amici curiae for American Newspaper Publishers Ass\u2019n.\nSeth, Montgomery, Federici & Andrews, Santa Fe, amici curiae for New Mexico Press Ass\u2019n.\nSeth, Montgomery, Federici & Andrews, Santa Fe, Royall, Koegel & Rogers, New York City, amici curias for American Soc. of Newspaper Editors.\nJames D. Sidwell, Paul A. Phillips, William C. Schaab, Albuquerque, amici curiae for New Mexico Civil Liberties Union." }, "file_name": "0475-01", "first_page_order": 531, "last_page_order": 544 }