State v. Rielly

• Decision Date: 20 September 1905
• Citation: 82 P. 287,40 Wash. 217
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DYE v. RIELLY.

82 P. 287

40 Wash. 217

STATE ex rel. DYE v. RIELLY.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 20, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; C. H. Neal, Judge.

Contempt proceedings by the state, on the relation of R. M. Dye against John Rielly. From a judgment adjudging defendant in contempt, he appeals. Reversed.

H. N. Martin, for appellant.

R. M Dye, pro se.

DUNBAR J.

This is a contempt proceeding. A restraining order was issued out of the superior court of Lincoln county, Wash., on the 5th day of August, 1904, forbidding the appellant from obstructing a certain highway in Lincoln county. On the 27th day of September, 1904, upon the application and affidavit of the prosecuting attorney of said county, setting up facts showing a violation of said restraining order, an order was made and entered commanding the arrest of the appellant. Warrant for his arrest was issued and served. Upon the trial of the contempt proceeding the appellant was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to a fine of $100 and imprisonment in jail for 30 days. From this judgment this appeal is taken.

It is claimed (1) that the affidavit does not state facts sufficient to charge a crime; (2) that the temporary restraining order which defendant is accused of violating is void and of no effect; (3) that the facts do not support the findings; (4) misjoinder of parties; (5) that the defendant was compelled to testify over his objections and (6) that the judgment is not supported by the law. The affidavit, we think, amply states sufficient on which to base a conviction. It shows that the appellant was restrained by the court from obstructing the highway, and that he afterwards obstructed the same. The question of whether the temporary restraining order which the defendant is accused of violating was void, for the reason that no highway existed is not before this court for determination; the judgment in that case not having been appealed from. We also think that the facts proved in this case support the court's findings. Neither is there any misjoinder of parties plaintiff.

Nor are we prepared to say that the defendant was wrongfully compelled to testify over his objections. This objection is based upon section 9, art. 1, of the state Constitution which provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. The question turns upon the proposition as to whether or not a contempt proceeding is a criminal case. We are constrained to think that it is not, within the meaning of the constitutional provision. This court held, in State ex rel. Geiger v. Geiger, 20 Wash. 181, 54 P. 1129, that proceedings against defendant, as for contempt in refusing to obey the order of the court compelling him to pay alimony upon a decree of divorce, did not constitute a criminal action; that hence the failure to give an appeal bond upon an appeal from an order adjudging the appellant in contempt was cause for the dismissal of the appellant. It has been held in California that a contempt proceeding is a criminal proceeding, and that the...