SENATE BILL REPORT

SHB 1983

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

Senate Hearing Date(s):March 13, 1989; March 23, 1989

Majority Report:  Do pass as amended.

      Signed by Senators Pullen, Chairman; McCaslin, Vice Chairman; Madsen, Nelson, Rinehart, Talmadge.

Senate Staff:Jon Carlson (786-7459)

                  March 23, 1989

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE, MARCH 23, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Washington statutes regulating contempt of court have not changed significantly since territorial days.  There are two statutes which govern contempt in a general fashion.  Chapter 7.20 is the general or civil contempt statute.  RCW 9.23.010 is the criminal contempt statute.  In addition to these two general statutes there are a number of other statutes which have specific provisions governing contempt in particular cases.

RCW 7.20.010 defines the activities that constitute contempt of court. The acts which constitute contempt fall into a few broad categories.  There are acts which take place in the courtroom and are disruptive of the judicial proceedings.  There are acts which obstruct the judicial process through fraud, deceit, or abuse of the judicial process.  Finally, there are acts which violate an order of the court.

The maximum penalty for statutory civil contempt is a fine of $300 and six months imprisonment.  If the contempt did not involve disruptive behavior in the courtroom, the right or remedy of a party to the proceeding must also have been harmed by the contempt or the punishment may not exceed a fine of $100.  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 provides criminal penalties for contempt of court.  The actions which constitute contempt under the criminal code are essentially the same as the acts which 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 $1,000 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 in order to coerce a person into obeying a court order which the person has the power to do so.  A punitive sanction may be imposed for a past failure to comply with a court order.

The court or a party may request the court to impose a remedial sanction for a contempt of court by filing a motion with the court.  After notice and hearing, the court may impose a remedial sanction which may include compensation to the other party, imprisonment until the person agrees to comply, a forfeiture of up to $2,000 a day, or an order designed to assure compliance.

A punitive sanction may generally 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 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.

Several statutes making reference to civil or criminal contempt are amended to correct the references.

Appropriation:    none

Revenue:    none

Fiscal Note:      none requested

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SENATE AMENDMENT:

Language is added which clarifies that imprisonment for remedial contempt may only continue so long as the imprisonment serves a coercive purpose.

In addition to other remedial sanctions, the court may require a person found in contempt to pay a party for any losses suffered by the party as a result of the contempt, and any costs incurred in connection with the contempt proceeding, including reasonable attorneys fees.

Any person aggrieved by the contempt may request the prosecuting attorney or city attorney to file a complaint seeking a punitive sanction.

A request that the prosecuting attorney or the city attorney commence an action may be made by a judge presiding in an action or proceeding to which a contempt relates.  A judge making a request for a contempt action is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial.

The judge may summarily impose either remedial or punitive sanctions if the contempt occurs within the courtroom, and if the judge certifies that he or she saw or heard the contempt.  A forfeiture imposed as a remedial sanction for summary contempt may not exceed more than $500 for each day the contempt continues.

Administrative agencies may only petition the superior court for a remedial sanction.

The definition of "contempt of court" is modified.

Senate Committee - Testified: Garth Jones, Superior Court Judges Association