Legal Opinion

State v. Berty

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 5, 2006No. 32522-5-IIPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 Attorney Stone Grissom appeals contempt sanctions that the trial court imposed for his conduct *76while representing Mark Berty on voyeurism charges. Grissom contends that the trial court erred in relying on its inherent contempt power rather than initiating contempt under the criminal contempt statute. He also claims that he did not commit misconduct as a matter of law. We hold that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to impose sanctions for contempt committed in the court’s presence, but that the amount of sanctions imposed was excessive. We affirm but remand for entry of an…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. PowellWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Nast v. MichelsWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Pounders v. WatsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. State v. WiningsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  5. State v. WiningsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. BirchCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  2. State v. JordanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  3. State v. BirchCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. Darrion Holiwell, V. Grenadinah Dela LlanaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2026
  5. State v. JordanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API