Issue: Under Texas law, may criminal contempt be based on an unclear order?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Criminal contempt; Vague or void order; No criminal conduct |
| Jurisdiction: | Texas |
| Cited Cases: | 1 S.W.3d 246; 155 Tex. 650 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
Criminal contempt cannot be found if the order upon which the contempt is based is void; if the order alleged to have been disobeyed is too vague for enforcement; if the alleged contemnor did not in fact engage in the conduct alleged; or if the alleged contemnor lacked the intent required in connection with a finding of criminal conduct. See generally 13 Tex. Jur. 3d Contempt §§ 19-23 (1993 & Supp. 2000).
The underlying order must set forth the terms of compliance in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms so that the alleged contemnor knows exactly what duties and obligations are imposed on him or her. In re Wiese, 1 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1999, no writ). Interpretation of the provisions of an order may not rest on implication or conjecture; the allegedly contemptuous acts must be directly contrary to the express terms of the order. Ex parte Blasingame, 748 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1988).
Further, the lack of intent to disrespect an order of the court, and actions taken that the alleged contemnor believes in good faith are permitted under the court’s injunctive order, may be considered in mitigation or as purging the contempt. Herring v. Houston Nat’l Exch. Bank, 113 Tex. 337, 255 S.W.1097 (1923); Freeman v. Ferguson, 155 Tex. 650, 292 S.W.2d 632 (1956).
[…]