Opinion ID: 1111415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: use of prosecutor's office

Text: In his brief, Butler alleges that the district court ordered the prosecutor's office to initiate contempt proceedings against him. The record, however, clearly establishes that the court ordered the prosecutor to prepare a show cause order which Judge Goff then signed and filed. Thus, it was Judge Goff who initiated the contempt proceedings, not the prosecutor's office. The power of courts to punish individuals for contempt is inherent, and although the power can be regulated by the legislature, it cannot be interfered with or abridged. McDougall v. Sheridan, 23 Idaho 191, 224, 128 P. 954, 965 (1913). Contrary to the assertion by Butler, the record clearly establishes that the prosecutor's office did not initiate the contempt proceedings, but simply prepared the show cause order that the court then signed and filed. Absent any prohibition by the legislature, we find it to be clearly within the inherent power of the district court to order a court officer, such as a prosecutor, to prepare an order for the judge's signature. [W]hen proceedings are not provided by the legislature, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of the code. Id. at 224-25, 128 P. at 965.