Opinion ID: 1406893
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the evidence was insufficient to prove contempt.

Text: In Colorado a municipal court judge has all judicial powers relating to the operation of his court. . . . Section 13-10-112, C.R.S. 1973. One such power, implied by the need to maintain the order and decorum indispensable to judicial proceedings, is the contempt power. Like other inherent judicial powers, this power must be exercised with patience and selfrestraint. A judge's power, to punish contempt committed in his presence is not designed to protect his own dignity or person, but to protect the rights of litigants and the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be thwarted or obstructed. Losavio v. District Court, 182 Colo. 180, 184, 512 P.2d 266, 267 (1973). Judges must be cautious to avoid overreacting when persons not familiar with court procedures, through ignorance or frustration, unintentionally cause minor commotions. Since the contempt power is rooted in the necessity to maintain the respectful atmosphere appropriate to efficient administration of justice, it should be invoked only when the judicial process has been seriously affronted or disrupted. Only then is there a need to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court or to reestablish the respect owed to it. See People v. Ellis, Colo., 540 P.2d 1082 (1975). In our view, there was insufficient evidence to support the contempt conviction here because there was no evidence to support a finding that the defendant's remarks to his wife caused any obstruction of justice. The municipal judge's testimony that spectator attention was focused on the defendant does not prove an obstruction of justice. In re People in the Interest of Murley, 124 Colo. 581, 239 P.2d 706 (1951). Without some evidence that the substance of the defendant's comment was heard by someone besides his wife, and that he spoke disparagingly of the court, the defendant's remarks to his wife cannot support the conviction. The record indicates that the only substantial delay or disruption in court proceedings occurred after the judge required the defendant to return to the courtroom, sought to force him to divulge his prior remarks, and had him handcuffed in open court. That disruption cannot be attributed to the defendant's conduct.