cdTOCtest

CONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPTCONTEMPT

Generally, contempt can be classified as either
criminal contempt, which includes indictable and
punitive contempt, or civil (coercive) contempt. Both
indictable contempt and punitive contempt seek to
punish the contemnor for his or her act, whereas coercive
contempt seeks to compel compliance with an
injunction, judgment or order.

The Penal Code, while abolishing common law
crimes, preserves the judicial power to punish for
contempt. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-5c. The power is further
defined by statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:10-1 to -8, and in the
court rules, R. 1:10-1 et seq. With the advent of the
Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991, N.J.S.A.
2C:25-17 to 33, the crime of contempt has expanded
with the prosecution of domestic violence incidents. A
person may be found guilty of a fourth degree crime of
contempt if he or she knowingly or purposefully disobeys
a court order entered under the Act and the conduct
which constitutes the violation is a crime or a disorderly
persons offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9b.

A charge of indictable contempt has also been
extended to persons violating the Drug Offender
Restraining Order Act of 1999, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.4 to
5.8, which essentially prohibits individuals charged with
drug distribution or gun-related offenses from returning
to the place where the offense occurred.

When a court seeks to summarily punish
contemptuous conduct it may employ the punitive
power of contempt. The punitive power of contempt
may take two forms, contempt in facie curaie, codified in
R. 1:10-1, and contempt outside the presence of the
court, codified in R. 1:10-2. Punitive contempt in facie
curaie, also referred to as direct contempt, is a tool that
allows a judge to act summarily without notice to
preserve the dignity of the court and efficacy in the
administration of justice.

Punitive contempt outside the presence of the court,
or indirect contempt, also may be adjudicated by way of
a summary proceeding. However, unlike direct
contempt, it provides the contemnor with procedural
protections such as notice, a hearing and adjudication by
a different judge.

The court rules do not use the term “civil contempt,”
but view the process as one of relief to litigants. The
coercive power of contempt, codified in R. 1:10-3, allows

litigants, usually in a civil action, a remedy to compel

compliance with an injunction, judgment, or order of the

court or administrative body. The contemnor in a

coercive contempt case can usually purge himself or

herself by complying with the terms of the injunction,

judgment or order.

I. INDICTABLE CONTEMPT

A. Rules Governing Indictable Contempt.

See generally, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9 - fourth degree indictable

CONTEMPT................................................................................................................................................

1. A charge of contempt under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9 is an
   indictable offense. In a prosecution for contempt,
   defendants are entitled to the full panoply of due process
   protections. In re Buehrer, 50 N.J. 501, 513 (1967).


2. Fourth degree contempt is a separate and distinct
   crime from the underlying offense, and a conviction may
   lie for contempt regardless of the final disposition of the
   underlying offense. State v. Roberts, 212 N.J. Super. 476
   (App. Div. 1986).


3. When the charge of contempt and the underlying
   offense arise from the same criminal event, upon motion
   by defendant the trial should be severed if evidence of an
   order, a necessary element to prove the contempt charge,
   is prejudicial to the trial of the underlying offense. State
   v. Chenique-Puey, 145 N.J. 334, 343 (1996).

B. Current Examples of Indictable Contempt

1. In a criminal contempt proceeding, evidence that
   the order in effect at the time of the offense but which was
   subsequently vacated ex post facto was not a defense in
   defendant’s contempt hearing. State v. Sanders, 327 N.J.
   Super. 385 (App. Div. 2000).


2. Court orders must be obeyed unless and until they
   are changed or rescinded, and parties may not gamble on
   a temporary order’s final outcome to justify committing
   an interim violation of its restraints. State v. Washington,
   319 N.J. Super. 681 (Law Div. 1998).


3. Because the order remains in effect until a court
   sets it aside, if reconciliation occurs the proper course is
   to apply to the court to vacate the order. Mohamed v.
   Mohamed, 232 N.J. Super. 474 (App. Div. 1989).


4. A woman was found not in contempt of an order
   that prohibited harassment as defined by N.J.S.A.
   2C:33-4a by the mere yelling of offensive words to her