2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure › 25-2122 - Punishment; procedure.

25-2122.
Punishment; procedure.
Contempts committed in the presence of the court may be punished summarily; in other cases the party upon being brought before the court, shall be notified of the accusation against him, and have a reasonable time to make his defense.
Source
R.S.1867, Code § 670, p. 512;
R.S.1913, § 8237;
C.S.1922, § 9190;
C.S.1929, § 20-2122;
R.S.1943, § 25-2122.
Annotations
1. Procedure
2. Review
1. Procedure
Before a sanction for criminal contempt of court committed outside the presence of the court may be levied, defendant must be brought before the court, notified of the accusation against him, and given reasonable time to make his defense. State ex rel. Collins v. Beister, 227 Neb. 829, 420 N.W.2d 309 (1988).
Appellant, who was found in contempt for tardiness after receiving notice, adequate time to prepare for a hearing, and a hearing at which he could have offered an excuse or explanation for his tardiness, cannot complain that he was convicted of constructive contempt without a hearing, technically proper notice, and the production of evidence. In re Contempt of Potter, 207 Neb. 769, 301 N.W.2d 560 (1981).
Where an affidavit is used to prosecute a contempt charge, failure to use the word "willful" is not fatal where the reading of the affidavit clearly indicates intentional disobedience. Sempek v. Sempek, 198 Neb. 300, 252 N.W.2d 284 (1977).
The right of confrontation does not apply to criminal contempt proceedings and defendant's presence is not required if there have been suitable notice and adequate opportunity to appear and be heard. State v. Rhodes, 192 Neb. 557, 222 N.W.2d 837 (1974).
Only requirement as to information is that the accused shall be notified of the charge against him when brought before the court. In re Application of Niklaus, 144 Neb. 503, 13 N.W.2d 655 (1944).
Notary may commit a witness for contempt for refusal to answer proper questions during taking of deposition. Ehlers v. State, 133 Neb. 241, 274 N.W. 570 (1937).
Preliminary examination is not necessary in proceedings for contempt. Kopp v. State, 124 Neb. 363, 246 N.W. 718 (1933).
Contempt proceedings are in nature to be deemed criminal, and governed by same rules. Gentle v. Pantel Realty Co., 120 Neb. 630, 234 N.W. 574 (1931).
Summary proceedings for contempt lie only where contempt committed in court's presence and court has judicial cognizance of facts. Judgment not stating facts constituting alleged contempt will not sustain sentence. Gonzalez v. State, 119 Neb. 13, 226 N.W. 801 (1929).
Without formal complaint, finding by court that party to civil action is guilty of contempt will not sustain conviction. Finegold v. State, 112 Neb. 64, 198 N.W. 572 (1924).
Affidavit charging constructive contempt, made by county attorney, is sufficient, though on information and belief. Tasich v. State, 111 Neb. 465, 196 N.W. 688 (1923).
Summary conviction may be had only for contempt committed in presence of court. Gordon v. State, 73 Neb. 221, 102 N.W. 458 (1905).
Proceedings are strictly construed; accused is entitled to be heard in own defense. Beckett v. State, 49 Neb. 210, 68 N.W. 473 (1896); Hawes v. State, 46 Neb. 149, 64 N.W. 699 (1895).
When committed in presence of court, affidavit must state sufficient facts to show that the case is one over which the court has jurisdiction. Hawthorne v. State, 45 Neb. 871, 64 N.W. 359 (1895).
Material facts must be stated. Ludden v. State, 31 Neb. 429, 48 N.W. 61 (1891).
This section does allow summary punishments of contempts committed in the presence of the court. In re Interest of Simon H., 8 Neb. App. 225, 590 N.W.2d 421 (1999).
Charge of contempt committed outside presence of court must be made by information. Rhodes v. Houston, 202 F.Supp. 624 (D. Neb. 1962).
2. Review
Where punishment for contempt not committed in presence of court is imposed by void order without accusation, notice or opportunity to make defense, and without evidence or trial, such order may be reviewed without motion for new trial. Muffly v. State, 129 Neb. 334, 261 N.W. 560 (1935).
Proceeding must be reviewed on error, not by appeal. Hanika v. State, 87 Neb. 845, 128 N.W. 526 (1910).
Judgment may be reviewed on error. Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143 (1882).