Opinion ID: 1111415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: affidavit requirement

Text: Butler next argues that his failure to appear at the continued arraignment constituted indirect contempt which, under I.C. § 7-603, requires the filing of an affidavit. Under the Idaho Code, contempts are of two classes  direct contempts, which occur in the immediate presence of the court, and indirect contempts which occur outside the presence of the court. Jones v. Jones, 91 Idaho 578, 581, 428 P.2d 497, 500 (1967). We have previously answered the question of whether the failure of an attorney to appear in court is direct or indirect contempt. In re Williams, 120 Idaho 473, 817 P.2d 139 (1991). In Williams, an attorney failed to appear for a trial he thought had been continued. After reviewing the various lines of authority dealing with an attorney's failure to appear in court, this Court adopted the hybrid form of direct contempt: the contempt arises from the failure to appear by the attorney, which occurs in the presence of the court, which is claimed to be excused by matters taking place outside of the court. Id at 477, 817 P.2d at 143. Under I.C. § 7-603 direct contempts are treated summarily; thus, no affidavit was required for the court to initiate contempt proceedings against Butler.