Document: 485 U.S. 624 108 S.Ct. 1423 99 L.Ed.2d 721 Cecil HICKS, District Attorney for County of Orange, California, Acting on Behalf Alta Sue FEIOCK, Petitioner,v.Phillip William FEIOCK. No. 86-787. Argued Dec. 1, 1987. Decided April 27, 1988. Syllabus After respondent stopped making $150 monthly child support payments to his ex-wife under a California state-court order, he was served with an order show cause why should not be held in contempt nine counts failure make the payments. At hearing, defense that financially unable partially successful, but adjudged five counts; sentenced 5-day jail term each count, consecutively; and placed probation three years upon suspension sentence. As conditions probation, ordered resume begin repaying $50 per month accumulated arrearages. During court rejected contention application against him Cal.Civ.Proc.Ann. § 1209.5 (West 1982), governing prima facie showing payments, unconstitutional Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it shifts defendant burden proof as ability comply which is element crime contempt. The Court Appeal annulled ruling purports impose "a mandatory presumption compelling conclusion guilt without independent pay," therefore "the nature lessens prosecution's proof." went state future guidance, however, statute construed authorizing permissive inference, presumption. Supreme denied review. Held: 1. With regard determination issues necessary decide this case, appellate ruled whether individual able offense rather than affirmative charge, alleged contemnor persuasion simply production inability comply. Since review, free overturn court's conclusions these state-law issues. However, issue proceeding relief given were properly characterized civil or criminal nature, purposes determining proper applicability federal constitutional protections, raises question law law. Thus, erred insofar sustained respondent's challenge concluded "quasi-criminal" matter Pp. 629-630. 2. For applying State's proceedings, provides strong dispositive, classification imposed criminal. critical features are substance character will afford. cases, remedy if punishment remedial complainant's benefit. But sentence punitive, vindicate authority. provided imprisonment, stands committed unless until performs act required by punitive limited unconditional imprisonment definite period. If fine, when paid complainant, court, though fine payable also can avoid paying performing order. These distinctions lead fundamental proposition penalties may someone who has been afforded protections Constitution requires including requirement proved beyond reasonable doubt. 631-635. 3. Although underlying particular kinds germane, they controlling proceedings. In both have aspects seen either both. hinged overlapping States ascertain any degree assurance how their proceedings understood law, thus creating novel complex problems. 635-639. 4. proceeding, 1209.5's (as interpreted court), applied would violate undercut prove constitutionally valid. There indications intended such notice sent respondent, labeled "criminal nature," Attorney's participation case. trial only coercive remedies, improper invalidate result merely satisfied. afforded—respondent's sentence, its suspension, fixed probation—would all. did specify payment arrearages (which, timely made, completed before expiration period) purged determinate nature. erroneous views principles pass issue, must determined remand further consideration 1209.5. 637-641. 180 Cal.App.3d 649, 225 Cal.Rptr. 748 (1986), vacated remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, joined, post, p. ----. KENNEDY, took no part decision Michael R. Capizzi, Santa Ana, Cal., petitioner. Richard Lynn Schwartzberg, respondent. Justice WHITE Court. 1 A parent failed valid defended subsequent charges claiming presumed remain terms prior judged legislative presumptions Amendment, forbids employ certain affect innocence We 2 * On January 19, 1976, entered requiring Phillip Feiock, children. Over next six years, sporadically complied December 1982 had discontinued altogether. His sought enforce orders. June 22, 1984, hearing her petition ongoing arrearage due her. examined financial situation commencing July 1984. reserved jurisdiction over purpose reviewing condition. 3 Respondent apparently made two nothing months. He then court. August 9, 1985, petitioner out case establishing existence knowledge arguing pay during months question. This argument counts. 5 days consecutively, total 25 days. suspended, years. one once again month. another condition ordered, starting following month, arrearage, $1,650. 4 objected Cal.Civ.Proc.Code Ann. 1982) him, Amendment proving contempt.1 objection rejected, renewed appeal. intermediate agreed 654, 748, 751 (1986).2 light holding previously unconstitutional, adopt different interpretation govern proceedings: "For we determine presumption." Id., at 655, Cal.Rptr., 751. explicitly considered reinterpretation exercise "obligation interpret preserve constitutionality whenever possible." Ibid. granted certiorari. 480 915, 107 1367, 94 684 (1987). II Three decided resolve First constitutes or, instead, charge. Second shoulder attempting establish Third i.e., 6 Petitioner argues determinations first points liberty depart from resolution marshals number sources misapplied points, review law.3 7 third matter: characterization correct stated. re Winship, 397 358, 365-366, 90 1068, 1073-1074, 368 (1970); Gault, 387 49-50, 87 1428, 1455-1456, 18 527 (1967); Shillitani v. United States, 384 364, 368-369, 86 1531, 1534-1535, 16 622 (1966). fact resultant determinative Cal.App.3d, 653, 750. III A. 8 determines classify other provisions Constitution, long standing, settled least broad outlines many decades. When involved, guidance about State exercising authority "in nonpunitive, noncriminal manner," challenges "civil" "criminal" clearest proof" Allen Illinois, 478 106 2988, 2992, 92 296 (1986). Nonetheless, substantiated, labels affixed allowed defeat applicable particularly so codified laws contempt, where become increasingly blurred.4 9 Instead, "If remedial, benefit complainant. court." Gompers Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 418, 441, 31 492, 498, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). ascertainable few straightforward rules. order," period." 442, 498. up See, e.g., Gompers, supra, 444, S.Ct., 499; Michaelson ex rel. Chicago, St. P., M. O.R. 266 42, 66, 45 18, 20, 69 162 (1924).5 10 consistently principles. early century, men found guilty serve 6, 12 respectively. unconditional. "The distinction between refusing do commanded,—remedied party act; doing forbidden,—punished term; sound principle, generally, universally, affords test punishment." U.S., 443, 499. former instance, conditional renders "can end discharge himself moment what refused do." latter "cannot undo done nor afford compensation" shorten promising repeat offense." 11 repeated followed cases. An penalty "solely exclusively character." Penfield Co. SEC, 330 585, 593, 67 918, 922, 91 1117 (1947). penalty, contrast, specifically designed compel some act. "One fined, day [does ordered], power penalty. And those imprisoned obey 'carry keys prison own pockets.' " 590, 921, quoting Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (CA8 1902). Penfield, man produce documents. since tried could flat, $50.00." 588, 920.6 See Rylander, 460 752, 103 1548, 75 521 (1983); Nye 313 33, 61 810, 85 1172 (1941); Fox Capital 299 105, 57 57, 81 (1936); Lamb Cramer, 285 217, 52 315, 76 715 (1932); Oriel Russell, 278 49 173, 73 419 (1929); Ex parte Grossman, 267 87, 332, (1925); Doyle London Guarantee 204 599, 27 313, 51 641 (1907); Christensen Engineering 194 458, 24 729, 48 1072 (1904); Bessette W.B. Conkey 324, 665, 997 (1904). (1966), adheres same testify grant immunity. Both proviso answered questions ended, released. upheld "conditional even lacked essential 365, 1533. Any "must viewed remedial," hence "if release contemnor's willingness [comply order]." 370, 1535. By token, "may includes purge clause." n. 1536, (emphasis added). "On contrary, imposition deterrence." 5, 1535, 5.7 B 13 repeatedly stating rules set above, eschewed alternative formulation turn perceived be. lie behind germane understanding character, never undertaken psychoanalyze subjective intent courts, effort unseemly improper, misguided. both: imposes fines punishments contemnor, vindicating legal enter initial seeking give effect law's modifying behavior conform noted Gompers: 14 "It true form [punishment] incidental effect. purely there vindication hand, solely complainant derive tends prevent repetition disobedience. indirect consequences change into vice versa." 15 reasons, drawn examination itself. yet reason prevented hinging point. definition depend courts' purposes, indeed often clearly articulated event, shift direction serious unfortunate. Of primary practical importance intelligible how, lawfully procedures It great understand advance tools available them ensuring swift compliance orders—not orders commanding support, command more general area domestic relations all areas well. 17 plan around traditional remedies. abandonment clear dividing line favor assessment manifold action create problems now rarely any—novel infect certainly suspended cannot decisive defining relief, convicted criminals treated exactly manner (among others) influencing behavior. What criminal: meets informal jail. one, proceeding.8 IV dispositive here, carry offense, Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 701-702, 95 1881, 1890-1891, 44 508 (1975). valid, Maggio Zeitz, 333 56, 75-76, 68 401, 411-412, 476 (1948); Oriel, 364-365, 174-175, conceded much argument. Tr. Oral Arg. 37.9 19 discussing Order Show Cause Declaration Contempt (June 12, 1985), App. 21, Though significant, facts us, surely authorized do, Clause, satisfied.10 bears emphasis wholly ambiguous. charged violating discrete orders, primarily face defiance. violated, battle force conduct 20 Applying classifying factual separate counts, arose past days, all, nature.11 One continue rate rate, Not contemplate violations, expressly states "[i]f missed, consecutive not, entire balance shall payable." Superior Orange (Aug. 39. unclear ultimate satisfaction aspect vary another, depending precise disposition surprising neither offer satisfactory explanation point 42-47.12 here clause, Shillitani, 6; Fox, 106, 108, 58, 59; 21 view enough aver And, earlier, point, coupled Federal led reinterpret statute, softening impact presumption, save constitutionality. Yet does necessarily prohibit employing judgment off arrearage. circumstances, course vacate below compulsion Affiliated Tribes Fort Berthold Reservation Wold Engineering, P.C., 467 138, 152, 104 2267, 2276, 113 (1984). need conflict Clause.13 22 inconsistent opinion. 23 ordered. KENNEDY whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE SCALIA join, dissenting. 26 concerns my view, Therefore, remained capable complying time proceeding. illustrate difficult obtain modest amounts noncustodial parent. Adams married Feiock 1968. couple resided 1973, left family. Mrs. dissolution marriage, custody children, support. interlocutory awarded children beginning February 1976. $35 four months, $75 modified. 28 final moved Ohio. 1982. Pursuant Ohio's enactment Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act (URESA), complaint Common Pleas Stark County, Ohio Rev.Code 3115.09(B) (1980). recited obliged $225 $2,300 arrears. transmitted supporting documents Petitioner, Attorney, prosecuted behalf accordance California's version URESA. 1670 et seq. 1982). 29 obtaining several continuances, finally appeared explained recently partner flower business uncertain prospects. temporary basis, although alter Payments 30 September. times thereafter, asked modification Eventually, Orders Declarations alleging based invoked says: "When competent makes furnish . child, present pronounced noncompliance therewith evidence 32 overcome testified regarding missed Accordingly, execution years' immediately additional October 1985. 33 writ habeas corpus Appeal, prevailed shifting offense. That confronts incorrect 34 erected substantial obstacle enforcement vividly describes it, turns worthless piece scrap." Brief 47. hampers strengthened needed. efforts national scandal. 1983, half custodial parents received full amount ordered; approximately 26% lesser amount, 24% all." Women's Legal Defense Fund al. Amici Curiae (footnote omitted). easily reluctant evade obligation. Congress recognized problem enacted Child Amendments Pub.L. 98-378, 98 Stat. 1305. S.Rep. 98-387, pp. 5-6 (1984), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 2397; H.R.Rep. 98-527, 30, (1983). Legislature responded enacting described Now, says petitioner, sabotaged Legislature's effort. 35 useless obligor typically lack access employment records needed sustain below, especially self-employed, here. Serious follow Appeal's statutory continues within means. 36 asks us Martin Ohio, 228, 1098, contends supposing production, citing Lyons Municipal 829, 838, 142 449, 452 (1977); Oliver 197 Cal.App.2d 237, 242, 474, 476-477 (1961); 4A J. Goddard, Practice: Family Law Practice 686 (3d ed. 1981); Cal.Jur.3d, §§ 32, 71 (1974); B. Witkin, Summary Law, Parent 137 (8th 1974). province courts. I agree majority that, decision, assume correctly matters supra; Gas Public Service Texas, 303 123, 139, 58 483, 491, 82 702 (1938). error, courts 37 linchpin process standards evidentiary Ulster Allen, 442 140, 167, 2213, 2230, 60 777 (1979) (mandatory impermissible sufficient inference doubt"); Sandstrom Montana, 510, 523-524, 2450, 2458-2459, 39 (1979). recognized, require doubt use differ accordingly. context, rule comply, 757, 1552, (1983), bear well, (1948). urges, our precedents Clause. 38 itself criminal, regardless label attached conducting 368-370, (1966); (1947); 42-43, 812-813, 220-221, 316-317, 441-443, 498-499, Civil coercive; punitive. Failure alimony example type cognizable Whether inferred objective sanction imposed. most important indication inures complaining proportioned loss compensatory civil. Mine Workers, 258, 304, 677, 701, 884 Because limits exposed risk sanctions safeguards necessary. character. 40 analogous types sentences incarceration. Commitment usually operates confers advantage party. 501. incarcerated she complies compensate adverse directly, party's favor. [contemnors] 'the pockets,' 'is essentially parties quite exercised centuries secure judicial decrees.' 368, 1534 (citations 41 Several peculiar All governed procedural 1209-1222 Supp.1988); Morris, Cal. 63, 67, 227 P. 914, 915 (1924); Wright, Byrne, Haakh, Westbrook, Wheat, Criminal Courts, F.R.D. (1955). defendants entitled guaranteed ordinary defendants, quasi-criminal Ross Cal.3d 899, 913, 141 133, 142, 569 P.2d 727, 736 Culver City Cal.2d 535, 541-542, 241 261-262 (1952); Martin, 472, 480, 139 451, 455-456 (1977). conducted conclusively demonstrate analysis 42 Certain formal raise possibility involved stated "[a] nature" violation subject "possible penalties." 21. advised right attorney. judge told testify. 27. Finally, count consecutively. 1218 (contempt punished exceeding $500, both); cf. 1219 performed, omission perform act). 43 Nevertheless, reveal initiated provision URESA authorizes Feiock's behalf. 1680 very caption indicates, acting representative prosecution. authorize appear chapter Code Procedure "Civil Enforcement." 1672, 1685. appears spousal through like shifted Atkinson, Modern Custody 556 (1986); H. Krause, America 65 (1981); Annot., 53 A.L.R.2d 591, 607-616 (1957 Supp.1987). confirmed Without more, appropriate past. 40. special aim enforcing existing Our indicate Thus observed stand order." 498 included released soon obligations original going Like effectively "conditions [comply]." 46 imposing provide someday subsequently complies, immediately. disagree happen contingency arises, 44, 45-47, address today immediate render carries something better "keys prison" pocket: 47 apart generally cure failures future.* unlike collateral private party, distinguishes outside context. traditionally inquired attention bring providing represented conclude reverse below. Civ.Proc.Code "[w]hen mentioned among cases cited proposition, rested grounds Court's decisions, 652-655, 749-751, cited. People Roder, 189 501, 658 1302 "Where rests announces, datum ascertaining disregarded convinced persuasive data highest otherwise. where, lower rendered phase litigation Even arguable [the State] later modify [this] ever remains conjecture. meantime authoritatively declared had. think announced apply however desirable believe be, litigation." West American Telephone Telegraph 311 223, 237-238, 179, 183-184, (1940). good modern development, defines contempts statutes, compare 1209 Supp.1988) Penal 166 1970), merged Supp.1988). specific jury, classified petty offenses, crimes Bloom 391 194, 208-210, 88 1477, 1485-1486, 522 (1968). true, 205, 1484. person promptly paid. (The fine.) Appeals reversed, finding instead producing affirmed, imposed, whereas 587-595, 919-923. determinate: agreeing confinement conditional, passages indicated spoke conditioning mean physical confinement, otherwise determinate. feature physically foot follows suspending placing (with attendant disabilities, see 11, infra ). suggest, course, suspend probation. disobeyed sum money. accords decisions wielding powers, possible adequate proposed.' 371, Anderson Dunn, Wheat. 204, 231, 242 (1821). clear, established 1536; 366, 175. considering contemnor. "entitled informed charge know suit." 446, 500, ultimately applicable. 'criminal dominant fixes review.' 813, (1941), Union Tool Wilson, 259 107, 110, 427, 428, 66 848 (1922). put equivalent allow sanctions. puts numerous disabilities escape dictates as: judges imposed; revoked (including incarceration) reimposed variety reasons ordinarily proceedings; probationary status arise (for example, might influence sentencing prosecution offense). perhaps significance, binding reinforce ambiguity entitling Joint Appendix, "Order Purge Arrearage Judgment Contempt." i. satisfying real handicap consistent defined precedents. addition, themselves taken having resolved lawfulness statutes similar constitutions. Unlike ante, 638—641, find hints alone. suspends places pays period, fails current payment, go Chagolla, 151 1045, 199 181 (1984) (explaining conditions, reinstate sentence).

Category: 0