Court Opinion

ID: 9534287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:38:21.281233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:10.651421
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Alfred T. Sulmonetti, J., found defendant to be in contempt of court and sentenced him and the defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, 446 P2d 659, reversed and remanded. On petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court, McAllister, J., held that because defendant was not found guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior or breach of the peace but was found guilty of deceit as proscribed by statute by falsely representing to court that he had no prior convictions, proceeding was not an appropriate case in which to decide the limit, if any, on power of legislature to restrict contempt power of circuit court.
Petition for rehearing denied.
*329Contempt—False representation to court
4. Where defendant was not found guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior or breach of the peace but only of deceit in falsely representing to the court that he had no prior convictions, case was not an appropriate one for Supreme Court in which to decide the limit, if any, on power of legislature to restrict contempt power of circuit court.
See false statement under oath as contempt.
17 Am Jur 2d, Contempt § 33.
89 ALR2d 1263.
CJS, Contempt § 124.
In Banc
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
Alfred T. Sulmonetti, Judge.
George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland, and Billy L. Williamson, Deputy District Attorney, for the petition.
No appearance contra.
Before Perry, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Sloan, O’Connell, Goodwin, Denecke and Holman, Justices.
Petition for rehearing denied.
McAllister, j.
In State ex rel Oregon State Bar v. Lenske, 243 Or 477, 405 P2d 510, 407 P2d 250, we held that “the power of a constitutionally established court to punish for contempt may be regulated within reasonable bounds by the legislature but not to the extent that the court’s power is substantially impaired or destroyed.” 243 Or at 495. Since that case involved the contempt power of this court—a constitutional court— we did not pass on the authority of the legislature to limit the contempt power of a legislatively created court. The respondent in a petition for rehearing *330urges us to apply the same rule to the legislatively created circuit courts.
As we pointed out in our original opinion, the defendant was not found guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior or of a breach of the peace. He was found guilty only of deceit as proscribed in ORS 33.010 (1) (d) by falsely representing to the court that he had no prior convictions. We think this is not an appropriate case in which to decide the limit, if any, on the power of the legislature to restrict the contempt power of a circuit court.
The petition for rehearing is denied.