Purvis v. Purvis
657 So. 2d 794, 1994 WL 133487 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When contempt charges arise from conduct involving personal attacks on a judge, and the judge does not act instantly but instead holds a subsequent hearing, due process requires that a different, impartial judge preside over the contempt proceeding.
Facts:
- During his divorce proceeding, Sammy Purvis filed a motion to recuse the presiding judge, Chancellor Clapp.
- The motion accused Chancellor Clapp of lacking the 'mental capacity to know right from wrong,' needing 'psychiatric help,' and being unable to interpret the law.
- At a hearing on the motion, Purvis verbally added an allegation that his wife, Roberta Purvis, had claimed she could 'get anything she wanted' from Chancellor Clapp.
- Purvis also stated he had filed complaints against the chancellor with the Judicial Performance Commission and had provided information to the Attorney General's office for an investigation.
- The chancellor later cited threatening phone calls from Purvis as part of the basis for the contempt charge.
- Purvis concluded his remarks at the recusal hearing by acknowledging to the chancellor, 'I'm sure this probably insulted you to some extent...'
Procedural Posture:
- During divorce proceedings in a Mississippi chancery court (trial court), Sammy Purvis filed a pro se motion to recuse Chancellor Clapp.
- Chancellor Clapp denied the recusal motion following a hearing.
- The chancellor then scheduled a subsequent show cause hearing to determine if Purvis should be held in contempt of court.
- At the contempt hearing, Purvis, now represented by counsel, had his motion for a jury trial denied.
- Chancellor Clapp found Purvis in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in jail and a $100 fine.
- Sammy Purvis (appellant) appealed the contempt conviction to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does due process require a judge who was the subject of personal and insulting attacks in a party's motion to recuse themselves from presiding over a subsequent criminal contempt hearing against that party?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sullivan
Yes. Due process requires that a different judge preside over a contempt hearing when the charges stem from personal attacks on the presiding judge and the hearing is not held contemporaneously with the contemptuous conduct. The court first determined Purvis's conduct constituted constructive criminal contempt because the primary basis for the charge (filing the motion, making phone calls) occurred outside the court's presence. While a judge may summarily punish direct contempt that occurs in the courtroom, the delay in this case to a subsequent hearing removed the justification for immediate action. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court case Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, the court reasoned that where contempt involves aggravated personal attacks, the judge becomes personally embroiled, making it unlikely they can maintain the necessary detachment for a fair and unbiased decision. Because Chancellor Clapp was the target of Purvis's personal attacks, he should have recused himself from the subsequent contempt proceeding to satisfy the requirements of due process.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental due process requirement for an impartial tribunal, particularly in the context of criminal contempt. The decision clarifies that a judge's power to summarily punish for contempt is limited to immediate, in-court disruptions. By holding that a judge who is personally attacked must step aside for a subsequent contempt hearing, the court establishes a critical procedural safeguard against potential judicial bias. This precedent distinguishes between contempt as an affront to the court's authority versus a personal insult to the judge, requiring a higher level of procedural protection for the latter to preserve the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.
