Opinion ID: 1437505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Contempt Civil or Criminal

Text: Inherent judicial actions for contempt can be either civil or criminal. The question which must always be addressed ex ante is: what type of procedural protections are due before a particular contempt penalty may be imposed? United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2557. Contempt sanctions may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. See Fam.Ct. Civ.R. 70. See also Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988). Where the offense is serious or where the fine is more than petty, however, criminal contempt proceedings must meet the State and Federal Constitutional requirements for the trial and punishment of crimes. Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. at 632, 108 S.Ct. at 1429. Compare Del. Const. art. I, § 7. See Fam. Ct.Crim.R. 42. The proper resolution of DiSabatino's appeal requires an examination of the difference between civil and criminal contempt. More than two decades ago, this Court noted that the distinction between criminal and civil contempt is often cloudy at best. City of Wilmington v. General Teamsters Local Union 326, Del.Supr., 321 A.2d 123, 125 (1974). Only two years ago, the United States Supreme Court wrote that, [a]lthough the procedural contours of the two forms of contempt are well established, the distinguishing characteristics of civil versus criminal contempts are less clear. United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2557. [6] Historically, the classification of a contempt proceeding as either civil or criminal has been determined by the character and purpose of the sanction imposed: whether a contempt is civil or criminal turns on the character and purpose of the sanction involved. Thus, a contempt sanction is considered civil if it is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court. United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2557 (quoting Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441, 31 S.Ct. 492, 498, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911)). See also Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. at 631-634, 108 S.Ct. at 1429-31. The sanction of imprisonment can be imposed for either civil or criminal contempt of court. The paradigmatic coercive, civil contempt sanction in the form of incarceration: involves confining a contemnor indefinitely until he complies with an affirmative command such as an order to pay alimony, or to surrender property ordered to be turned over to a receiver, or to make a conveyance. ... Imprisonment for a fixed term similarly is coercive when the contemnor is given the option of earlier release if he complies.... In these circumstances, the contemnor is able to purge the contempt and obtain his release by committing an affirmative act, and thus carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket. United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2557 (citations omitted) (quoting Gompers, 221 U.S. at 442, 31 S.Ct. at 498). See Allen v. Div. of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Ware, Del.Supr., 575 A.2d 1176, 1179, n. 5 (1990). [7] Conversely, a fixed term of imprisonment is punitive and criminal if it is imposed retrospectively for a past act of disobedience, and cannot be avoided or abated by subsequent compliance with the court's order. United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2558; Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. at 632-633, 108 S.Ct. at 1429-30; Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. at 442-443, 31 S.Ct. at 498. The dichotomy between civil and criminal contempt also extends to fines as a sanction. A fine is considered civil and remedial if it either coerce[s] the defendant into compliance with the court's order, [or]... compensate[s] the complainant for losses sustained. United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2558 (quoting United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 303-304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947)). If a fine is not compensatory, it is civil only if the contemnor is afforded an opportunity to purge the obligation by compliance. United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2558. See also Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. at 632, 108 S.Ct. at 1429. Consequently, an unconditional fine totalling even as little as $50 announced after a finding of contempt is criminal if the contemnor has no subsequent opportunity to reduce or avoid the fine through compliance. United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2558 (citing Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585, 67 S.Ct. 918, 91 L.Ed. 1117 (1947)).