Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. THOMPSON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1984-01-11
Citations: 66 Or. App. 496
Docket Number: 30217; CA A29258
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. THOMPSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 66
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 20, 1983,
reversed and remanded for reconsideration January 11, 1984
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. THOMPSON, Appellant.
(30217; CA A29258)
674 P2d 92
Robert P. Van Natta, St. Helens, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Van Natta & Petersen, St. Helens.
Robert E. Barton, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The trial court's order finding defendant to be in contempt is inadequate in that it does not identify the statutory basis upon which it is entered. Accordingly, we cannot determine if it was proper.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand, the trial court may wish to consider, inter alia, the impact such decisions as SER Spencer v. Howe, 281 Or 599, 576 P2d 4 (1978), have on the procedures that must be followed (and the punishment that can he imposed) with respect to conduct like that of defendant.