Opinion ID: 1111415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: wilfulness requirement

Text: Butler argues that in order for the court to hold him in contempt, his actions must have been proven to be wilful beyond a reasonable doubt. Idaho courts have not previously addressed the question of wilfulness in contempt proceedings. Because Idaho's contempt statute was derived from California's, we find enlightening in interpreting our contempt statutes, California cases which have interpreted their contempt statute. See e.g., Ex parte Niday, 15 Idaho 559, 568, 98 P. 845, 848 (1908); see also, In re Williams, 120 Idaho 473, 817 P.2d 139 (1991) (citing California case law in adopting the hybrid form of direct contempt). The California Court of Appeals has adopted a standard in which an attorney's failure to appear in court will be considered wilful for the purposes of contempt proceedings when the failure displays an indifferent disregard for the duty to promptly obey court orders. In re Stanley, 114 Cal. App.3d 588, 170 Cal.Rptr. 755 (1981); In re Karpf, 10 Cal.App.3d 355, 88 Cal.Rptr. 895 (1970). The California Supreme Court has held that a finding of contempt for failure to appear is warranted even though the attorney's absence was not a deliberately and maliciously planned dereliction of duty, but rather exhibited a remissness and failure in performance of duty . . . coupled with the ability to perform. Lyons v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.2d 755, 278 P.2d 681, 683 (1955). The California Supreme Court further noted that if the absence was due to factors reasonably beyond the attorney's control, the burden of producing exculpatory facts rested on the attorney. Id. We agree with the California courts that an indifferent disregard of a duty is a proper standard for determining wilfulness when an attorney fails to appear in court, and that the burden of producing exculpatory facts rests on the attorney. To require courts to find that an absent attorney acted deliberately and with malice would place an extremely high burden on judges who seek only to encourage attorneys to make timely court appearances. It is undisputed that Butler failed to appear at the continued arraignment because he neglected to calender the hearing, a factor reasonably within his control. The evidence in the record is sufficient to support the district court's findings and those findings likewise support its conclusion that Butler's failure to appear at the continued arraignment amounted to an indifferent disregard of a duty to the court, and was contemptuous.