State v. Murga

“Because punitive contempt is quasi-criminal in nature, an accusatory instrument is required. ORS 33.065(4), (5); see State v. Hauskins, 251 Or. App. 34, 39, 281 P.3d 669, 673 (2012). An accusatory instrument is a ‘grand jury indictment, an information or a complaint.’”

Defendant appealed an order imposing an incarceration sanction for punitive contempt under ORS 33.065. Defendant asserted that because the punitive contempt proceeding originated from a motion and order to show cause, as opposed to an accusatory instrument, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In response, the State argued that even if the motion and order to show cause failed to comply with ORS 33.065(5) and ORS 131.005(1), that deficiency did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. “Because punitive contempt is quasi-criminal in nature, an accusatory instrument is required. ORS 33.065(4), (5); see State v. Hauskins, 251 Or. App. 34, 39, 281 P.3d 669, 673 (2012). An accusatory instrument is a ‘grand jury indictment, an information or a complaint.’” The Court of Appeals found that a motion and order to show cause is a deficient pleading for purposes of initiation of a punitive contempt action. However, the Court held that deficiency did not create an issue of subject matter jurisdiction and the record shows that Defendant did receive full procedural protections appropriate to punitive contempt. Affirmed.