Cross Guns v. Eighth Judicial District Court
2017 MT 144
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Roberta Cross Guns, a contract public defender, failed to appear at a termination-of-parental-rights hearing set March 1, 2017 in Cascade County; she had conflicting hearings in another judicial district and filed a continuance motion one day before the hearing.
- Judge Pinski offered video or phone appearances; Cross Guns did not appear, and the court continued the hearing. Many parties and witnesses waited in court.
- The court issued a show-cause order under § 3-1-511, MCA, and later held a contempt hearing April 12, 2017 after affording Cross Guns an opportunity to explain her absence.
- The District Court found Cross Guns in contempt, imposed a $500 fine and $1,124.76 in costs (pursuant to § 37-61-421), and described the sanction as punitive/deterrent.
- Cross Guns petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of review, arguing lack of jurisdiction, that the contempt was criminal requiring Title 46 protections (§ 3-1-518 and § 3-1-501(3)), and that Judge Pinski should have recused.
- The Supreme Court stayed payment of the fine pending review, then vacated that stay and denied the writ, directing payment within 7 days.
Issues
| Issue | Cross Guns' Argument | Judge Pinski's/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt was criminal (requiring full Title 46 protections) or civil/summary under § 3-1-511 | Contempt was criminal; Title 46 due-process protections and indirect-contempt procedures required | The court characterized and treated the contempt as summary/direct under § 3-1-511 because it observed the misconduct and acted to prevent delay | Held: Contempt was direct/summary under § 3-1-511; court properly proceeded without full Title 46 procedures |
| Whether Cross Guns was entitled to indirect-contempt procedures (hearing before a neutral judge; proof beyond a reasonable doubt) | Cross Guns argued she was entitled to an indirect-contempt hearing and an unbiased judge | Court argued immediate action was necessary because the judge personally observed the absence causing delay; allocution was given at show-cause hearing | Held: Because the judge personally observed the contempt (failure to appear) and immediate action was necessary, indirect-contempt procedures were not required |
| Whether substantial evidence supported the contempt finding | Cross Guns relied on excuses (scheduling confusion, medical family emergency, inability to secure substitute counsel) | Court relied on record: late continuance filing, numerous parties delayed, prior similar conduct, and trial priority of dependency cases | Held: Substantial evidence supported contempt finding |
| Authority to impose costs under § 37-61-421 and as part of § 3-1-511 sanctions | Cross Guns implicitly challenged allocation of costs to her personally | Court imposed $1,124.76 as excess costs for unreasonably multiplying proceedings and found such an award reasonable | Held: Court had authority to impose costs under § 37-61-421 and as a reasonable condition under § 3-1-511 |
Key Cases Cited
- Malee v. District Court for the Second Judicial Dist., 275 Mont. 72 (direct contempt may be summarily punished but contemnor must be allowed to explain)
- Kaufman v. Montana Twenty-First Judicial Dist. Ct., 291 Mont. 122 (1998) (indirect contempt requires full due-process protections and neutral judge)
- VanSkyock v. Manley, 387 Mont. 307 (2017) (distinction between direct and indirect contempt is critical to procedure)
- Marks v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 239 Mont. 428 (standard for appellate review of contempt proceedings)
- State ex rel. Foss v. Dist. Ct., 216 Mont. 327 (contempt-review principles)
- Matter of Graveley, 188 Mont. 546 (contempt jurisprudence)
- State ex rel. Rankin v. District Court, 58 Mont. 276 (judge-observed facts suffice for direct contempt)
- United States v. Marshall, 451 F.2d 372 (9th Cir.) (distinction between direct and indirect contempt)