Contempt Adjudication is Not Conviction of Offense for Purposes of Oregon Criminal Record Law
Contempt Adjudication is Not Conviction of Offense for Purposes of Oregon Criminal Record Law
On October 9, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that contempt of court adjudication is not the conviction of an offense, barring eligibility to have an earlier conviction set aside.
A person who has been convicted of certain Oregon crimes and has “fully complied with and performed” their sentences may apply to have their convictions set aside. Conviction of another offense within ten years of filing the motion, however, renders the person ineligible to have the earlier conviction set aside.
In 1990, Tracy Dela Coughlin pleaded guilty to forgery and was sentenced to a 24 month term of probation. She successfully completed her sentence.
In 2005, Coughlin was found in contempt of court for violating a restraining order. She was again sentenced to a 24 month term of probation, which she again successfully completed.
In 2011, Coughlin moved to have her 1990 forgery conviction set aside, pursuant to ORS 137.225(1). The State opposed the motion, arguing that she was ineligible to have the forgery conviction set aside, due to the 2005 contempt of court adjudication. The trial court agreed with the state and denied Coughlin’s motion.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed. Noting that “contempt is not a crime,” and “a finding of contempt - even a punitive contempt - is not a conviction,” the Court held that contempt of court adjudication is not an offense or conviction within the meaning of ORS 137.225(6).
The Court found that the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision to the contrary, in Oregon v. Thompson, 294 Or 528,659 P.2d 383 (1983), “does not compel a different result.” Rather, “because the statutory definition of ‘offense’ has been amended since Thompson was decided and because Thompson was based partly on policy considerations not at issue in this case,” the Court concluded that “Thompson does not control the result here.”
Ultimately, the Court held that “a person does not become ineligible to have a conviction set aside under ORS 137.225 merely because the person was held in contempt during the 10 years preceding his or her motion seeking that relief.”
See: State v. Coughlin, 311 P.3d 988 (Or. 2013).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
State v. Coughlin
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 311 P.3d 988 (Or. 2013) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |