No person may be convicted of contempt of court unless the State has proved the following by clear and convincing evidence:
First, the willful;
Second, disobedience/(interference with the carrying out);
Third, of a lawful order/process of a court.
By requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence, I mean that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that each of these elements is highly probable and free from serious doubt.
Statutory Authority: 21 O.S. 1991, §§ 565, 567.
21 O.S. 1991, § 565 categorizes contempts of court as either direct or indirect. Direct contempts involve disruptive conduct in the presence of the court, while indirect contempts involve disobeying or resisting execution of court orders or process outside of the court's presence. Direct contempts may be summarily punished and there is no right to jury trial for a direct contempt. 21 O.S. 1991, § 565.1; Gilbert v. State, 648 P.2d 1226, 1231 (Okl. Cr. 1982), overruling Roselle v. State, 503 P.2d 1293 (Okl. Cr. 1972). 21 O.S. § 567 provides for a right to jury trial for indirect contempts, but a clear and convincing standard of proof applies, instead of a reasonable doubt standard. Whillock v. Whillock, 550 P.2d 558, 560 (Okl. 1976). The definition of the clear and convincing standard in the last paragraph of the instruction is taken from Instruction No. 3.2 of the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions -- Civil (2nd ed. 1993).
| Service provided by the IS department of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Email our webmaster with any of your comments or suggestions.