Opinion ID: 1167023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Contempt Fines Are Excessive.

Text: The fines imposed upon Gedeon were clearly intended to be coercive in nature. The fines were to cease upon compliance with the court's order. Furthermore, the total amount of fines imposed was subject to review and adjustment by the court if and when Gedeon purged himself of contempt. The contempt order was therefore in the nature of civil contempt. See International Min. & C. Corp. v. Local 177, U.S. & A.P.W., 74 N.M. 195, 392 P.2d 343 (1964); State v. Greenwood, 63 N.M. 156, 315 P.2d 223 (1957); Jencks v. Goforth, 57 N.M. 627, 261 P.2d 655 (1953). It has been stated that in civil contempt proceedings a court should never exercise more than the least possible power adequate to the end proposed, in order to protect against the possibility of an intemperate sentence on the part of a judge, momentarily outraged by the conduct of a contemnor. Jencks v. Goforth, supra at 638, 261 P.2d at 662. The amount of the penalty for contempt rests within the discretion of the trial judge, absent an abuse of that discretion. See State v. Our Chapel of Memories of New Mexico, Inc., 74 N.M. 201, 392 P.2d 347 (1964). We find no abuse of discretion here. The gravity of the offense was serious, and the trial court may have felt a certain urgency in recovering the children from Gedeon, since he was being accused in this proceeding of sexual molestation of the children and other acts of misconduct towards them. The record shows that Gedeon was employed as an airline pilot with substantial income. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in imposing a stiff penalty for continued non-compliance. Though Gedeon contends the fines are excessive, they certainly do not exceed that adequate to the end proposed. Indeed, the fines in this case have been inadequate for the end proposed. There is some irony in Gedeon's argument, considering that despite the heavy penalties, he continues to flaunt the authority of the court. As this Court stated in State v. Our Chapel of Memories of New Mexico, Inc., supra at 204, 392 P.2d at 349: The orderly process of law demands that respect and compliance be given to orders issued by courts possessed of jurisdiction of the persons and of the subject matter and one who defies the order of a court having jurisdiction does so at his peril. The trial court is accorded a large discretion in the matter of imposing penalties for contempt. See id. We find no abuse of that discretion here.