Opinion ID: 1105828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Referral of Contempt Proceeding

Text: Rountree contends that if we hold that the trial court does have jurisdiction over him, then we should order the trial judge to refer the contempt proceeding to another judge. Rountree states that referral is required because of heated exchanges he says have occurred between the trial judge and Rountree and Hudmon. Rule 70A(f), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides in pertinent part: [I]f the judge's own conduct is so related to the alleged contumacious conduct that the judge may have contributed to or may have been otherwise involved in it, then... the contempt proceeding shall be referred to another judge, who shall hold a hearing to determine whether the person charged with contempt committed the contempt charged, and, if so, to impose punishment. Although a motion for transfer would normally be made first to the trial court, see generally Ex parte Crawford, 686 So.2d 196 (Ala.1996), our careful review of the materials before us indicates that the trial judge was involved in the sequence of events that led to the discord below and that he will probably be a witness regarding his out-of-court communications with Rountree. Thus, referral under Rule 70A(f) is proper. Because Rountree was subject to the contempt jurisdiction of the trial court, we grant the trial judge's petition for the writ of mandamus. We direct the Court of Civil Appeals to vacate its writ of prohibition and to enter an order instructing the trial judge to refer the contempt proceeding to another judge. PETITION GRANTED. HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, and LYONS, JJ., concur. COOK, J., concurs in the result. KENNEDY, J., dissents.