Legal Opinion
Langdon v. Langdon
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided March 14, 1990No. D8706-63571; CA A60857PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtButtler, P. J.
Defendant appeals from an order finding him guilty of contempt for failing to obey a child support order and sentencing him to serve 500 hours in the Forest Camp project, a determinate sentence.
On appeal, he argues that, because of the determinate sentence, the proceeding was for criminal contempt, rather than civil contempt. Hicks v. Feiock, 485 US 624, 108 S Ct 1423, 99 L Ed 2d 721 (1988); State ex rel AFSD v. Burkhart, 80 Or App 681, 723 P2d 374 (1986). If so, he had to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and could not be compelled to testify against himself. Gompers v. Bucks Stove…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. FeiockSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- State Ex Rel. Adult & Family Services Division v. BurkhartCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. BentonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- State ex rel. Mikkelsen v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- State ex rel. Wynne v. WynneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- Lovejoy Specialty Hospital, Inc. v. Advocates for Life, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- State ex rel. Leopold v. McCallisterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991