A new ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court ensures that a state judge does not have the inherent power to hold someone in contempt of court unless the contemptor is interfering with the judicial function of the court.
Official judicial duties include trying and deciding cases.
“At first blush, it may appear problematic to find Judge Privette could request the particular information at issue yet did not have authority to enforce that directive through a contempt proceeding,” wrote Judge Powell in the May 16 opinion. “This Court recognizes this case presents a unique situation in which the circuit courts of Missouri are, by statute, required and authorized to complete tasks unrelated to the administration of justice. But that is only to say contempt is not the appropriate mechanism to ensure completion of such tasks.”
As previously reported in the St. Louis Record, Oregon County Circuit Clerk Betty Grooms sued 37th Judicial Circuit Judge Steven Privette after he held her in contempt because a requested spreadsheet showing costs assessed on criminal cases for more than the three past years was missing information.
“In this case, he had asked her to prepare a spreadsheet, which was not within a judicial function,” said Grooms' attorney David Duree. “It was an administrative task and the judge did not have the authority to use contempt or the threat of contempt to perform that administrative task or to compel the performance of that administrative task.”
Judge Powell stated at the end of the opinion that instead of holding Grooms in contempt of court, Privette could have talked it out, brought in other judges to talk about it, filed a statutory misdemeanor-in-office proceeding for willfully failing to perform the clerk's duties or lodged a Quo Warranto petition to remove her from office.
“Judge Powell also suggested that he could have enlisted the staff of the Supreme Court or the Clerk of the Supreme Court, or the Office of the State Court Administrator (OSCA),” Duree told the St. Louis Record.
Howell County assistant prosecutor Heath Hardman had argued on behalf of Privette that his client was only trying to enforce compliance for an administrative duty he was required to fulfill under state law.
But Duree said Grooms did everything the judge asked in performing the administrative task.
“She's not behind on the court cost bills or the boarding cost bills,” he added. “It's my client's position that the judge had other motives in pursuing contempt charges against her and that the request for this information which was provided was just used as a pretext. We’re not sure of his exact motives.”