State Of Louisiana v. India Armani Ratliff In Re: Belinda Parker Brown

STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2023 KW 0989
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MARCH 28, 2024
INDIA ARMANI RATLIFF

Brown, for rehearing, 22nd
In Re: Belinda Parker applying
Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No.
Judicial District

3163- M- 2022.

McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.
BEFORE:

GRANTED. WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND
REHEARING APPLICATION
powers
DENIED IN PART. A court possesses inherently all

of its jurisdiction and the
necessary for the exercise

lawful It has the duty to require
enforcement of its orders.

that criminal proceedings shall be conducted with dignity and in
expeditious manner and to so control the
an orderly and

justice is done. A court has the power to
proceedings that
See La. Code Crim. P. art. 17. Where the
punish for contempt.
law is silent, the court has the inherent authority to fashion a
the administration of
remedy which will promote orderly
Mims, 329 So. 2d 686, 688 ( La. 1976); State v.
justice. State v.
2d Cir. 1/ 10/ 24) , So. 3d 2024
Dennis, 55, 462 ( La. App. f

WL 105015. However, the Code provides that a court may punish a
person adjudged guilty of contempt of court in connection with a
fine of not more than five hundred
criminal proceeding by a

than six months, or
dollars, or by imprisonment for not more

La. Code Crim. P. art. 25( B). Thus, the law is not
both.
issue. given the facts of this
silent on this Accordingly,
banning Belinda
case, the trial court erred by permanently
its contempt power, from Division E and the
Parker Brown, under

courtrooms, unless subpoenaed as a witness, as a
misdemeanor

or unless specific written authorization from the
party,
presiding judge was obtained.

Therefore, that portion of the ruling permanently banning
Parker from the courtrooms is reversed. In all other
Ms.
respects, the writ application is denied as the record shows the
adduced at the contempt proceedings was sufficient for
evidence

fact to that element of the
a rational trier of conclude every
criminal constructive contempt charge was proven beyond a

reasonable doubt. State in Interest of R. J. S., 493 So. 2d 1199

1986). See also Rogers v. Dickens, 2006- 0898 ( La. App. 1st
La.
Cir. 2/ 9/ 07), 959 So. 2d 940, 945.

Pmc
CHH

Miller, J., concurs.

C) URT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

tEPUT CLERK
C I OF COURT
FOR THE
T COURT