State v. Campbell

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: November 23, 2011 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DOUGLAS MICHAEL CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 10030469D A146974 Gerald R. Tipton, Judge pro tempore. Submitted on October 07, 2011. Paul B. Meadowbrook filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Justice J. Rillera, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment finding defendant in contempt of court. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant appeals a misdemeanor conviction for contempt based on a 3 violation of a pretrial release agreement. Defendant argues that because contempt is not a 4 crime, see State v. Reynolds, 239 Or App 313, 243 P3d 496 (2010), the trial court erred, 5 initially, in denying his motion to dismiss the charging instrument and, later, in 6 convicting him of a misdemeanor. The state, for its part, concedes that contempt is not a 7 crime but argues that the appropriate remedy was not dismissal of the indictment but 8 rather "entry of a judgment that does not characterize contempt of court as a criminal 9 conviction." We agree with the state's concession and its proposed disposition. See id. at 10 316 (reversing the defendant's conviction for contempt and remanding "for entry of a 11 judgment in that case finding defendant in contempt of court"); see also ORS 33.065(5) 12 (contempt proceeding for punitive sanctions may be initiated by a charging instrument 13 "subject to the same requirements and laws applicable to an accusatory instrument in a 14 criminal proceeding, and all proceedings on the accusatory instrument shall be in the 15 manner prescribed for criminal proceedings"). 16 17 Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment finding defendant in contempt of court. 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.