No. 54-03 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

19 84 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff anti Respondent, 

-vsGALE C. ABwIS, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, ,-* In and for the County of Rosebud, \% The Honorable Arthur B. Martin, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

George T. Radovich, Billings, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

S. Charles Sprinkle, Deputy County Attorney, 

Forsyth, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: March 23, 1984 

Decided: May 9, 1984 

0 

i+%-4*0du -- 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Defendant appeals the judgment of the Sixteenth Judicial 

District Court (Rosebud County) finding him guilty of 

misdemeanor criminal contempt under section 45-7-309, MCA. We 

reverse and dismiss. 

Abrams was convicted in district court, on appeal from 

justice court, of a misdemeanor game offense and was ordered 

to pay a fine of $300.00 within 90 days. Abrams presented a 

document entitled "Public Office Money Certificate" to the 

Clerk of Court within the time period. The Clerk 

subsequently discovered the document was not a negotiable 

instrument. Abrams was then notified that payment was still 

due, but the fine was never paid. 

After the expiration of the 90 days, the Rosebud County 

Attorney filed an information with the district court 

charging Abrams with criminal contempt under section 

45-7-309, MCA. Throughout this action defendant has 

maintained that the district court lacked jurisdiction. We 

agree. 

The crime of contempt as defined in section 45-7-309 is 

a misdemeanor. The crime is an offense against society and 

the action is brought by the State. 

In contrast, the courts of this State have a power to 

enforce their judgments and maintain decorum and respect in 

judicial proceedings. This contempt power is part of the 

judicial power conferred by Article VII, Section 1 of the 

Montana Constitution and is specifically enumerated in 

sections 3-1-501-523, MCA. Under this power a court may sua 

sponte find a person in either civil contempt or criminal 

contempt of the court's authority. Thus it has been said 

that "jurisdiction to punish a contempt rests solely in the 
contemned court; no court can try a contempt against 

another. " Gonzales v. District Court (Colo. 1981) , 629 P. 2d 

1074, 1076. 

The State maintains that the latter rule also applies to 

criminal contempt actions brought by the State pursuant to 

section 45-7-309, MCA. This argument must fail. Criminal 

contempt as defined in this statute is a wrong against 

society. The criminal action is totally independent of the 

case out of which the contempt arose. The contemned court's 

jurisdiction does not extend from the original case to this 

new and independent matter. 

A misdemeanor criminal contempt action, like most other 

misdemeanors punishable by up to 6 months in jail or $500.00 

or both, may only be brought in the Justice Court. Sections 

3-10-303 (I), 3-5-302 (1) (d) , (2) , MCA. 

The State argues the Justice Court's power to punish for 

contempt is limited by sections 3-10-401, 404, MCA. Again, 

these statutory provisions apply only to the judicial 

contempt power vested in the courts by the constitution and 

statutes. They cannot be construed to limit th.e Justice 

Court's power to try and sentence for the misdemeanor 

"criminal contempt" found in the penal code. 

It is unnecessary to reach any of the other issues 

raised. We hold the District Court has no jurisdiction over 

the matter. The case is dismissed. 
FJe concur: 

Chief ~ustic'e 

Justices 

Mr. Justice L.C. Gulbrandson specially concurring. 

I concur in the result. 

Justice