Court Opinion

ID: 9672454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:55:26.908287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.319843
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring in result. •
In retrospect the majority concludes that the contempt order was in part criminal and that because Hampton did not receive notice or an opportunity to be heard on the criminal contempt, that portion of the order must be reversed. The majority affirms that portion of the order which it concludes is a civil contempt. Presumably civil contempt also requires some form of notice and opportunity to be heard and it may seem inconsistent to conclude that Hampton had notice of the one and not the other as they arise from the same facts. The answer may be found in that portion of the majority opinion which observes that Hampton did not assert that he was denied *807notice or an opportunity to be heard for civil contempt. However, I am uncomfortable with that explanation because it appears to me that Hampton knew of the trial court’s concern as a result of the March 2, 1987, hearing and had notice of what the court intended to do.
I nevertheless concur in the result reached by the majority if only to signal our concern that in the sensitive area of contempt the factual differences which distinguish direct and indirect and civil and criminal contempt be recognized, that the procedural niceties attendant thereto be scrupulously observed, and that any doubt as to whether the contempt is direct or indirect be resolved by complying with the procedures for indirect contempt.