Opinion
TC D087-258; CA A48832; SC S36171
Argued and submitted October 4, 1989
Reversed and remanded October 26, 1989
In Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.
Appeal from judgment of Yamhill County Circuit Court, Donald R. Blensly, Judge. 95 Or. App. 582, 770 P.2d 619 (1989).
Jerry B. Hart, McMinnville, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Craig, Brand, Lake Hart, McMinnville.
Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
PER CURIAM
The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are reversed. The case is remanded to circuit court for further proceedings in light of Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 108 S Ct 1423, 99 L Ed 2d 721 (1988).
In this proceeding, the defendant was found in contempt and ordered "placed in the custody of the Yamhill County Sheriff for a period not to exceed 30 days." The defendant appealed, claiming that the state did not prove that the defendant wilfully disobeyed a court order. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. 95 Or. App. 582, 770 P.2d 619 (1989).
After the trial court's decision, but before the Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 108 S Ct 1423, 99 L Ed 2d 721 (1988), and held that, in criminal contempt cases, the contempt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. After the defendant filed a petition for review, the plaintiff State of Oregon joined in the request that this case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in light of Hicks. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings in light of Hicks v. Feiock, supra.