2017 ORS 33.096¹
Summary imposition of sanction

A court may summarily impose a sanction upon a person 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 (Procedure for imposition of remedial sanctions) and 33.065 (Procedure for imposition of punitive sanctions) do not apply to summary imposition of sanctions under this section. [1991 c.724 §8]

Notes of Decisions

“Immediate view and presence of court” means court authority to summarily punish contempt is limited to miscon­duct that occurs in court’s immediate presence when court is in session during judicial pro­ceed­ing. State v. Baker, 126 Or App 508, 868 P2d 1368 (1994); Barton v. Maxwell, 325 Or 72, 933 P2d 966 (1997)

Fine for summary contempt does not require finding of ability to pay. State v. Ramsey, 156 Or App 529, 967 P2d 525 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant’s representa­tion that court believed was false did not occur “in presence of court” when court obtained knowledge of falsity of representa­tion by per­sonal observa­tion outside courtroom, off record, while in recess. State v. Ferguson, 173 Or App 118, 20 P3d 242 (2001)

In absence of some overriding reason for delay, trial court is re­quired to impose any sanc­tion at first reasonable opportunity, usually at or before end of trial. State v. Spainhower, 251 Or App 25, 283 P3d 361 (2012)

Notes of Decisions

Contempt pro­ceed­ing instituted under these sec­tions for husband’s failure to pay spousal support pursuant to dissolu­tion decree is separate pro­ceed­ing from dissolu­tion and trial court’s jurisdic­tion to hold husband in contempt was therefore not defeated by husband’s ap­peal from dissolu­tion decree. Oliver and Oliver, 81 Or App 115, 724 P2d 869 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Choice-of-evils de­fense could not exonerate defendants charged with contempt for violating injunc­tion arising from demonstra­tion to prevent abor­tions because de­fense is available only if defendants’ necessary con­duct is not inconsistent with other pro­vi­sions of law. Downtown Women’s Center v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 111 Or App 317, 826 P2d 637 (1992)

Contempt pro­ceed­ings are not subject to laws governing venue for crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings. Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 16 P3d 1185 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 33—Special Proceedings and Procedures, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors033.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 33, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano033.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.