Martin v. State

The facts, as outlined by the majority, support the trial court’s ruling of indirect contempt based on appellants’ unlawful attempts to persuade one Carol Moore to change her testimony.1 An important additional fact, not referred to in the majority opinion, is that Mrs. Moore was the notary on the affidavit which commenced the criminal prosecution for grand theft against appellant Martin’s wife. A motion to dismiss the charges against Martin’s wife, based on irregularities in the execution of the affidavit, had been filed and hearing set for the day following appellants’ interview with Mrs.…