FINAL BILL REPORT

SHB 1983

PARTIAL VETO

                                  C 373 L 89

BYHouse Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Appelwick, P. King and Crane)

Revising laws on contempt of court.

House Committe on Judiciary

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

SYNOPSIS AS ENACTED

BACKGROUND:

Washington statutes regulating contempt of court have not changed significantly since territorial days.  Two general statutes govern civil and criminal contempt proceedings.  In addition to these two general statutes, a number of other statutes have specific provisions governing contempt in particular cases.

The civil contempt statute defines the activities that constitute contempt of court. These activities may be broadly categorized as:  (1) acts that take place in the courtroom and are disruptive of the judicial proceedings; (2) acts that obstruct the judicial process through fraud, deceit, or abuse of the judicial process; and (3) are acts that violate an order of the court.

The maximum penalty for statutory civil contempt is a fine of $300 and six months imprisonment.  The penalty may not exceed $100 if the contempt did not involve disruptive behavior in the courtroom and the right or remedy of a party to the proceeding was not harmed by the contempt.

If the contempt takes place in the immediate presence of the court, it may be handled summarily.  In all other cases the contempt charge must be made by affidavit and a show cause hearing.  The state is the plaintiff in any contempt proceeding.  The court may indemnify any person injured by a person's contemptuous conduct and may also order the contemnor imprisoned until he or she complies with a court order.

Washington's criminal code also provides a misdemeanor penalty for contempt of court.  The actions that constitute contempt under the criminal code are essentially the same as the acts that constitute contempt in the civil contempt statute.  The major difference between the provisions is that the criminal contempt statute requires willfulness on the part of the contemnor in many circumstances.  The maximum penalty for a misdemeanor is imprisonment for 90 days and a $1000 fine.

SUMMARY:

The law governing contempt of court is revised.  The existing distinction between criminal and civil contempt is replaced by a distinction between punitive sanctions and remedial sanctions.  A court may impose a remedial sanction for contempt of court to coerce a person into obeying a court order.  A punitive sanction may be imposed for a past failure to comply with a court order.

The court on its own motion or on the motion of a party court to impose a remedial sanction for a contempt of court.  After notice and hearing, the court may impose a remedial sanction that may include imprisonment until the person agrees to comply, a forfeiture of up to $2,000 a day, or an order designed to assure compliance.  The person found in contempt may also be ordered to compensate for any losses caused by the contempt, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Except for a summary order of contempt, a punitive sanction may be imposed only upon the filing of an information or complaint by the prosecuting attorney or a city attorney. The court may appoint a special counsel to prosecute the action if necessary.  Upon a finding of guilty, the court may impose a maximum penalty of $5,000 and one year in jail for each contempt of court.

The court may summarily impose a punitive or remedial sanction if a person commits a contempt of court within the courtroom and in the presence of the judge.  The sanction must be imposed immediately or at the end of the proceeding and may be no greater than $500 and 30 days in jail.  An appeal of a contempt finding does not stay any other proceeding out of which the contempt arose.

An administrative agency may petition the superior court for imposition of a remedial sanction against a person who is in contempt of an order in an administrative action or proceeding.

Several statutes making reference to civil or criminal contempt are amended to reflect the changes made by the act.

VOTES ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      House 91   0

      Senate    46     0 (Senate amended)

      House 97   0 (House concurred)

EFFECTIVE:July 23, 1989

Partial Veto Summary:  A section of the bill which was amended by another bill is vetoed to eliminate double amendment problems.  (See VETO MESSAGE)