Contempt of Court (PC 166) – Punishment? Defenses?

When most people think of contempt of court, they either imagine being disruptive or disrespectful to a judge, the clerk or a bailiff in a courtroom or willfully disobeying a written court order, most commonly a protective order in a domestic violence or elder abuse case. 

 

Those examples are indeed violations of Penal Code § 166, “Contempt of Court,” but it can also be refusing to be sworn in as a witness, which can be far more problematic because people often confuse the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (and the right to remain silent) as an absolute right that a judge cannot disturb.  Section 166 can also be violated by while serving as a witness, refusing to answer any material question when there is no legal exception, or publishing a false account of court proceedings.

A violation of Penal Code § 166 is punished by up to six months in county jail and/or a fine up to $1,000 for each violation.  It is a misdemeanor.

However, if one has a gun in violation of a court order, the penalty can be up to a year or even punished as a felony with up to three years in county jail or state prison, depending upon one’s prior history.  Likewise, if one is accused of stalking the victim and one has a prior history of stalking, the violation of the court order can be filed as a felony with punishment being sixteen months, two years or three years in state prison.

Similarly, under Penal Code § 166(c)(4), a violation of a court order can be punished as a felony with punishment of sixteen months, two years or three years in state prison if one has a prior violation of a court order within the last seven years, the violation involved an act of violence or a threat of violence, and the restraining order addressed domestic violence, elder abuse, dependent abuse or sexual injury of a child.  This type of violation can also be punished as a misdemeanor with up to one year (not six months) in county jail.

To disobey a court order in a way that violates § 166, a judge must issue a legal order, you must: 1) know about it either by being present in court and being told the terms of the order or be served with a written copy of the order and have the opportunity to read it; and 2) you must have the ability to comply with the order, but fail to do so.  The ability to comply is most often associated with financial ability.

The most common defense to a § 166 charge is that the violation of the court order, while it took place, was not willful.  For example, one may claim that one’s contact with the protected party was accidental.  Defendant had no plans or knowledge that the protected person would also be at the same concert, coffee shop or school event.  It was merely coincidental.  Depending upon the person’s credibility, this defense may be acceptable and reasonable.  

The other defense to this allegation is that one is being falsely accused.  Defendant never did what the protected party claims. 

 Defendant, for example, may have an alibi that he or she was not at the same concert, for example, because he or she was at home asleep and there are witnesses or other evidence corroborating this.

If one if accused of contempt based on disorderly or disruptive behavior in court, the defense most common is that one’s behavior was not intended to annoy or irritate anyone.  Defendant may have raised his or her voice, or said something inappropriate, but it was not meant to be disrespectful to anyone or create a chaotic atmosphere in court.  What defendant did has been misinterpreted.  Defendant’s intent was never to undermine the judge’s authority, the clerk’s ability to do her job or respect for the bailiff.  If defendant is operating under great emotional stress or mental illness, for example, this may be a viable defense, depending on the circumstances.

If one is accused of contempt of court for refusing to be sworn in as a witness or refusing to answer a material question when there is no legal reason, this is a difficult situation.  Refusing to be sworn in as a witness to testify truthfully really has no defense.  Refusing to answer a material question in court based on a privilege may be defensible if one has a reasonable belief that the Fifth Amendment protects one from self-incrimination, but even if so, the judge may order one to answer nonetheless.