Court Opinion

ID: 9900402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:12:14.46233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:05.213789
License: Public Domain

No. 357               July 12, 2023                   1

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

          In the Matter of the Contempt Against
                 Oregon Health Authority.
            OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
               Marion County Circuit Court
                  22CN03618; A179181

  Audrey J. Broyles, Judge.
  Argued and submitted March 28, 2023.
   Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for appellant. Also on the brief were Lisa M.
Udland, Deputy Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
  ORTEGA, P. J.
  Reversed.
2                                           Oregon Health Authority

          ORTEGA, P. J.
         The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) appeals from
a judgment of summary contempt, ORS 33.096, imposing a
$100,000 fine based on its failure to transfer a civilly commit-
ted person to either a secured residential treatment facility
or the Oregon State Hospital as ordered by the court. OHA
argues on appeal, among other things, that the court did not
have authority to hold it in summary contempt because the
alleged contemptuous conduct did not occur in “the imme-
diate view and presence of the court,” as required by ORS
33.096. We agree and reverse.
         The relevant facts are undisputed. In February
2022, AG, a resident of Marion County, stipulated to a
civil commitment in Multnomah County. At the time, AG
was receiving treatment at Unity Center for Behavioral
Health (Unity), an acute care hospital, which is located in
Multnomah County. On March 31, AG was discharged from
Unity for a community trial visit in Marion County. During
the trial visit, the case was transferred to Marion County.
AG did not do well during her trial visit and was transported
back to Unity on April 20.
        In June 2022, Unity sought to intervene in AG’s
case and moved for an order to immediately transfer AG to
a secure residential treatment facility (SRTF) or the Oregon
State Hospital (OSH). OHA and OSH moved to intervene
to respond to Unity’s motion. The court allowed the parties
to intervene and set a hearing. While Unity’s motion was
pending, Marion County Behavioral Health referred AG to
other placements, including to Halsey St., a SRTF, but AG
had not yet obtained admission.
         On July 8, the court held an evidentiary hearing
and granted Unity’s motion. On July 12, the court entered
its written order, which provides, in part:1
       “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Oregon Health
    Authority must transfer respondent from Unity to a secure
    residential treatment facility, to include the Oregon State
    Hospital if appropriate, by July 15, 2022 at 12:00 p.m. lf

    1
      OHA has separately appealed the immediate placement order, which is cur-
rently pending, Oregon State Hospital v. A. G., A179054.
Cite as 327 Or App 1 (2023)                                        3

   no such placement is made, the Oregon Health Authority
   is to appear and show cause why it should not be held in
   contempt on July 15, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.”
(Uppercase in original.)
         At the July 15 hearing, OHA confirmed that AG
was admitted to Halsey St. that day. OHA also filed docu-
mentation that placed AG on a trial visit to participate in
treatment at Halsey St. During the July 15 hearing, the
court stated,
   “And I’m pleased that AG is placed with Halsey. And I
   would just say that if for some reason Halsey * * * is doing
   anything different, that I would not expect AG to go back
   to Unity.
       “But I would expect her to go to the State Hospital until
   either the * * * issue is cleared up at Halsey or another
   SRTF is found, okay?”
Later the court addressed a question from AG’s family,
stating:
   “In answer to your question in terms of if the trial visit
   does not work or if there was some issue, I think that the
   statute would require that if the trial visit was revoked,
   then [AG] would go again—my understanding would be
   that she would go to the State Hospital because that is the
   only secure facility that could offer something that these
   other facilities could not.”
None of the counsel present at the hearing addressed the
court’s understanding.
         On Saturday, July 16, AG’s placement at Halsey St.
failed, and AG was immediately transported back to Unity.
         On July 20, the court held a hearing to address
AG’s placement. After denying OHA a stay of the immediate
placement order, the court asked OHA how it “defend[ed]
its violation of my order that was very clear that if she
moved out of Halsey, she did not go back to Unity?” After
some discussion with counsel, the court took testimony from
Steve Allen, Behavioral Health Director at OHA. Allen
testified that he first learned that AG had left Halsey St.
and returned to Unity late Sunday afternoon, after Unity
had readmitted her pursuant to an arrangement between
4                                    Oregon Health Authority

Halsey St. and Unity. Allen testified that OHA was actively
working to find AG a new placement, but that OHA could
not require those programs to admit her. He testified that
he also did not have authority over OSH to order it to admit
AG, nor did AG require that level of care. He also testified
that OSH had to prioritize other individuals who did not
have access to any care, such as defendants in jail who could
not aid and assist in their own defense. The court did not
accept OHA’s explanations, finding “that there has been a
local violation of my court order. And I am going to fin[d
OHA] in contempt of my order, which was that she not go
back to Unity.” The court also imposed a $100,000 fine.
         Following the hearing, the trial court opened a new
matter and entered a judgment of summary contempt under
ORS 33.096. That judgment provides that the contemptuous
conduct was that OHA “failed to take the directed action” of
transferring AG “from Unity in Portland to a secure residen-
tial treatment facility / State Hospital by 7/15/22.” The judg-
ment also imposed the $100,000 fine to be paid by July 22.
         On appeal, OHA first argues that the court erred in
holding OHA in summary contempt because OHA’s alleged
contemptuous conduct occurred outside the presence of the
judge. We agree with OHA that the trial court did not have
authority to use summary contempt to punish OHA’s alleged
violation of the court’s order.
        Summary contempt is governed by ORS 33.096,
which provides:
        “A court may summarily impose a sanction upon a per-
    son who commits a contempt of court in the immediate view
    and presence of the court. The sanction may be imposed for
    the purpose of preserving order in the court or protecting
    the authority and dignity of the court. The provisions of
    ORS 33.055 and 33.065 do not apply to summary imposi-
    tion of sanctions under this section.”
          That statute preserves “the decades-old rule that
the authority of the court to punish a contempt summarily—
that is, by court order without presentation of an accusatory
instrument or affidavit—exists only if the offender commits
the contempt ‘in the immediate view and presence of the
court.’ ” Barton v. Maxwell, 325 Or 72, 76, 933 P2d 966 (1997).
Cite as 327 Or App 1 (2023)                                  5

The Supreme Court has long held that the court’s authority
to summarily punish contempt is confined “to misconduct
that occurs in the court’s immediate presence when the court
is in session during a judicial proceeding.” Id. at 79 (empha-
sis in original). If a court must depend upon statements
made by others to determine if the contempt occurred, then
the court does not have the authority to use summary con-
tempt to punish that conduct. See, e.g., State v. Arnold, 302
Or App 765, 774-75, 462 P3d 753 (2020) (“A court’s authority
to forgo the usual due process requirements and summarily
punish contemptuous conduct that occurs in the courtroom
must therefore be based on the court’s personal knowledge
of the conduct.”).
         Conduct that does not fall with the ambit of con-
duct that a court has authority to punish through summary
contempt has included a defendant who filed a motion by
mail in violation of the court’s order, Barton, 325 Or at 79; a
defendant who made a factual misrepresentation to the court
about her conduct when the court’s knowledge that it was a
misrepresentation was obtained by observing the hallway
outside the courtroom during a recess, State v. Ferguson, 173
Or App 118, 125, 20 P3d 242 (2001); and a defendant who
“flipped off” the prosecutor during a proceeding when the
court did not personally see the conduct occur, even though
the defendant admitted to the conduct, Arnold, 302 Or App
at 774.
         Here, the court did not have authority to hold OHA
in summary contempt and impose the $100,000 fine. The
conduct that the court concluded was in violation of its order
was the failure of OHA to transfer AG to either a SRTF or
OSH after AG’s trial visit with Halsey St. failed. That con-
duct did not occur in the immediate view and presence of the
court, as required by ORS 33.096. It was not conduct that
occurred in the courtroom during a judicial proceeding, nor
was it conduct that the judge personally witnessed. Indeed,
the court swore in a witness and took testimony during the
hearing to substantiate the conduct that the court concluded
was in contempt of its order. Accordingly, we reverse.
        Reversed.