Opinion ID: 1470023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Contempt Finding Based on the Attorney General's Duck and Run Comment

Text: The trial justice also found the Attorney General in contempt after he determined that the Attorney General's duck and run comment violated the court's December order. We conclude that the December order was unenforceable because it was not sufficiently clear to be the basis of a contempt finding. Therefore, we reverse that finding of contempt as well and vacate the subsequent imposition of sanctions. [31] As previously discussed, an order upon which a contempt finding is based must be sufficiently specific, clear and precise to put individuals on notice about what conduct is prohibited or required. Ventures Management Co., 434 A.2d at 254 (quoting Sunbeam Corp., 86 R.I. at 194, 134 A.2d at 162). The court's order on December 6, 2005, directed the Attorney General to cease and desist from making any subjective characterizations of the defendants or any of them or of their agents, servants or attorneys. In our opinion, the term subjective was too vague and imprecise to allow for a subsequent finding of contempt. Black's Law Dictionary defines subjective as [b]ased on an individual's perceptions, feelings, or intentions, as opposed to externally verifiable phenomena. Black's Law Dictionary 1465 (8th ed. 2004). The phrase subjective characterizations did not adequately advise the Attorney General as to what speech was allowed and what speech was prohibited, given, it seems to us, that a vast number of statements could be characterized as both objective and subjective. Given this vague wording, we do not believe that the Attorney General was put on adequate notice about what types of speech actually were prohibited. Thus, we reverse the trial justice's finding of contempt based on the duck and run comment and vacate the related sanctions.