COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70315 IN THE MATTER OF : LAFETTE FRYERSON : : : JOURNAL ENTRY : : AND : : OPINION : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MARCH 6, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from Juvenile Court Division Case No. 9601145 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Appellant Thomas Foster: KENNETH D. MYERS AVERY S. FRIEDMAN 701 Citizens Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For Appellee: GERALD S. GOLD JOHN S. PYLE 1500 Leader Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - O'DONNELL, J.: Thomas Foster, the Director of Detention Services for Juvenile Court, appeals from an order of that Court finding him in contempt for failing or refusing to fully and completely respond to the court's inquiries regarding an escape by two juveniles from the Detention Center during the late evening hours of March 5, 1996. On March 6, 1996, the morning after the escape, the trial court brought Foster before the court to answer inquiries of the court relative to the escape of Lafette Fryerson, and specifically concerning how the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which had run a story that morning in its Metro Section captioned "Chaplin's pliers used in escape," obtained such information. When Foster appeared in court, the trial court asked him to read the article. But before agreeing to do so, Foster inquired as to his status in the matter, i.e., whether the trial court considered him a defendant relevant to the escape and if so, Foster requested that he have an attorney present before answering any of the court's questions. After a series of exchanges the trial court assured Foster that he was not a defendant, but rather an employee of the court and that the court merely wanted him to read the article. Foster read the article and again requested an attorney, and then the following exchange occurred: - 3 - THOMAS FOSTER: I...I have read the article... THE COURT: ...you...you've had it in front of You, have you read it, yes or no? THOMAS FOSTER: Your Honor...Your Honor, I am requesting an attorney present. THE COURT: Mr. Foster if you don't answer my question I will hold you in direct contempt of this Court. Will you please tell me whether... THOMAS FOSTER: I've read... THE COURT: ...or not you've read the article? THOMAS FOSTER: ...I've read the article. (Tr. 5-6.) Thereafter, the court inquired about the investigation into the escape being conducted by the supervisors at the detention center, to which Foster responded by providing the court with all the information he knew at that time relevant to such, including the status of the investigation, when it would be completed, and to whom the final investigative report would be given. Then the court and Foster engaged in a final series of questions and answers: THE COURT: *** Where did the information come from about these pliers? THOMAS FOSTER: I don't understand (inaudible) your question. THE COURT: The pliers: it says that the young men used a pair of pliers. How did people find that out? THOMAS FOSTER: They were told. - 4 - THE COURT: How so? THOMAS FOSTER: I don't have the records. THE COURT: Well I'm not asking if you have records: I'm sure you have the knowledge, you're the number one man at the detention center, and there has been a flurry of activity uh...to the absence of anything else... *** THE COURT: Uh...I'm gonna ask you to answer my questions or you will held in direct contempt. THOMAS FOSTER: I'm telling you I don't know. THE COURT: Take Mr. Foster into custody. You are held in direct contempt, we will have a further evidentiary hearing. (Tr. 6-7.) Subsequently, the court issued a journal entry finding that Foster failed or refused to fully and completely respond to the court's inquiries, ordered Foster held in summary contempt of court to serve thirty days in jail and pay a Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar fine, and further ordered said contemnor may purge himself of contempt by answering questions to the court relative to the escape. Thereafter, on March 6, 1996, Foster obtained a stay of the trial court order from this court, and the administrative judge of the Juvenile Court also issued an order releasing Foster from jail. Foster now appeals the order of contempt and assigns four errors for our review. The first assignment of error states: - 5 - I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, AS HIS ACTS WERE NOT CONTEMPTUOUS. Foster contends that the trial court improperly found him in contempt because he did not refuse to answer the court's questions, nor did he disobey an order of the court or impair the administration of justice, but merely did not know the answers to the questions the court asked him. The trial court obtained counsel for this appeal and maintains that Foster's failure to fully and completely respond to the court's questions constituted contempt of court. The issue here for our determination is whether the responses Foster provided the trial court regarding the escape from detention warranted a finding of contempt. R.C. 2705.01 styled, Summary punishment for contempt, states: A court, or judge at chambers, may summarily punish a person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of justice. In State v. Conliff (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 185, the court stated at 188-189: The reason for authorizing the court to summarily punish direct contempt without the necessity of notice and an opportunity to be heard is that unless such an open threat to the orderly procedure of the court is not instantly suppressed and punished, demoralization of the court's authority may fallow.***. See Cooke v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 517, at 536. In that case, the headnote of the court read: - 6 - Displays of ill-mannered conduct are not summarily punishable under the law of direct contempt unless they pose an imminent threat to the administration of justice. Finally, in that case, the court stated at 190-191: *** The administration of justice is best served by restricting the power of summary direct contempt to that conduct which tends to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court in the performance of its function***. In this case, the transcript reveals that Foster attempted to answer each question posed by the trial court, conduct which we conclude does not tend to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court in the performance of its function and does not constitute misbehavior in the presence of the court. Hence, it is not contemptuous. Clearly Foster's response did not pose an imminent threat to the administration of justice. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court improperly held Foster in summary contempt of court and, accordingly, we reverse that finding and remand the case to the trial court to vacate the sentence for contempt. Foster's second, third, and fourth assignments of error are rendered moot by this determination and, thus, need not be decided in accordance with Appellate Rule 12(A)(1)(c). Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. - 7 - This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant(s) recover of said appellee(s) costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SWEENEY, C.J., and KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement .