Opinion ID: 1424803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: is walter's contempt punishable by imprisonment under as 09.50.020?

Text: Walter argues that under AS 09.50.020 the court was not authorized to punish by imprisonment his violation of AS 09.50.010(5). AS 09.50.020 provides: Penalty. A person who is guilty of contempt is punishable by fine of not more than $300 or by imprisonment for not more than six months. However, when the contempt is one mentioned in AS 09.50.010(3)-(12), or in an action before a magistrate, the person is punishable by a fine of not more than $100 unless it appears that a right or remedy of a party to an action or proceeding was defeated or prejudiced by the contempt, in which case the penalty shall be as prescribed for contempts described in AS 09.50.010(1) and (2). Since the contempt with which Walter was charged is one mentioned in subsections (3)-(12), the court was not authorized to impose a sentence of imprisonment unless it appeared that a right or remedy of a party to the action had been defeated or prejudiced by the contempt. Judge Blair found that Walter's contempt prejudiced Marilyn's right to be left alone. Walter does not contest this finding. Instead he contends that the legislature did not intend such a right to be among those whose prejudice would justify imprisonment. As Walter points out, the statutory scheme of sections 10 and 20 suggests that not every violation of a court order is punishable by imprisonment. Therefore, argues Walter, since every violation of a court order prejudices rights created by that order, the legislature cannot have intended in section 20 to include in the scope of the word right those rights created by the violated court order. Whatever force this argument may possess, it fails here for the reason that Marilyn's right to be left alone is not a right created by a court order. The right to be free from harassment and constant intrusion into one's daily affairs is enjoyed by all persons. See Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d at 995 n. 12; W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 117, at 807-09 (4th ed. 1971). Because Walter's contempt prejudiced Marilyn's right to be left alone, Walter's contempt is punishable by imprisonment under AS 09.50.020. The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED. BURKE, J., concurs.