REILLY, Judge.
In this pretrial appeal, appellant State of Minnesota challenges the district court's dismissal of a contempt-of-court charge. The state argues that the plain language of Minn.Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4) (2012), gives the prosecutor authority to charge a defendant with contempt after the defendant violates a condition of probation contained in the sentencing order. We affirm.
In December 2013, the Polk County district court convicted and sentenced respondent Miranda Jones on a fourth-degree controlled substance charge. The district court stayed Jones's sentence and placed her on supervised probation for a ten-year period. Conditions of Jones's supervised probation require that she refrain from using alcohol and remain law-abiding.
During the early hours of May 31, 2014, a Polk County deputy responded to a report that an intoxicated female was running down the street, screaming, and refusing to return to her house.
On June 4, 2014, Jones moved to dismiss the contempt charge, arguing that (1) a contempt charge is inappropriate because other remedies are prescribed to address probation violations; (2) other jurisdictions do not allow this practice; and (3) a probation agreement is not a court order.
In an August 5, 2014 order, the district court dismissed the contempt-of-court charge. In addressing this issue of first impression, the district court's well-reasoned analysis considered authority from other jurisdictions and the appropriateness of allowing contempt of court as a sanction for probation violations. Ultimately, the district court concluded that criminal contempt is not a proper consequence for alleged probation violations and using the contempt penalty in this manner would be inconsistent with the purposes of contempt. The district court dismissed the contempt charge and the state appealed.
Did the district court err in granting Jones's motion to dismiss the contempt-of-court charge?
Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 28.04 allows the state to appeal pretrial orders, subject to some restrictions. A pretrial order dismissing a charge for lack of probable cause is appealable if the order is based on a legal determination. State v. Ciurleo, 471 N.W.2d 119, 121 (Minn.App.1991); see also Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 1(1) (providing that the state may appeal as of right from most pretrial orders, including a probable-cause dismissal based on questions of law).
To prevail in a pretrial appeal, the state must "demonstrate[] clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial." State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677, 681 (Minn.2009). Because the district court in its pretrial order dismissed the contempt charge, it clearly had a critical impact on the outcome of the case. See State v. Gerard, 832 N.W.2d 314, 317 (Minn.App.2013) (explaining that dismissal of a complaint satisfies the critical-impact requirement), review denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013).
The state contends that the sentencing order issued in Jones's felony case is a "mandate of the court," thus subjecting a violator of a probation condition listed in the sentencing order to a contempt-of-court charge under Minn.Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4). We review the district court's conclusion that criminal contempt is not a consequence for a probation violation de novo. See State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn.2013) (questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo); State v. Legarde, 479 N.W.2d 434, 435 (Minn. App.1992) (questions of law are reviewed de novo). We note that this case arrived under a unique procedural posture and circumstances: a Polk County deputy sheriff tab-charged Jones with contempt of court, and the district court dismissed the charge, implicitly finding a lack of probable cause. Due to the irregular nature and posture of this case, background information concerning the purposes of both contempt and probation aids our analysis.
Finding an individual in contempt of court is a power traditionally reserved for and residing with the courts. See State v. Tatum, 556 N.W.2d 541, 547 (Minn.1996) ("While [chapter] 588 declares the court's power, that contempt power exists independent of the statute. The power is essential to the effectiveness of all other
Reviewing caselaw addressing contempt illuminates how a contempt charge initiated by the state for a probation violation does not fit the purpose of the court's contempt power. In Tatum, the supreme court described the fundamental differences in the categorization of the character of contempt orders. 556 N.W.2d at 544. The character of contempt orders distinguishes between the purpose and the nature of an order. Id. at 544-45. When contemplating the penalty of contempt, the supreme court directs courts to "determine at their earliest convenience whether the purpose of the contempt proceeding is remedial or punitive, and whether the nature of the contemptuous conduct at issue is direct or constructive." Id. at 545. Since this case involves the use of criminal contempt, we turn next to the purpose and nature of criminal contempt.
In Minnesota, the purpose of criminal/punitive contempt orders is generally to punish offensive conduct directed against the dignity and authority of the court, Minn. State Bar Ass'n v. Divorce Assistance Ass'n, Inc., 311 Minn. 276, 285, 248 N.W.2d 733, 741 (1976), and to "preserve the authority of the court by punishing past misconduct." In re Welfare of A.W., 399 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Minn.App. 1987) (citing Peterson v. Peterson, 278 Minn. 275, 153 N.W.2d 825 (1967)). See Tatum, 556 N.W.2d at 544 n. 2 (adopting "remedial" for civil contempt and "punitive" for criminal contempt). "The sanction is inflicted primarily as punishment for the past disrespectful or contumacious conduct and in vindication of public authority." Minn. State Bar Ass'n, 311 Minn. at 285, 248 N.W.2d at 741. This punishment is not intended for the benefit of either party, but to vindicate the authority of the court. State v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 122, 63 N.W. 169, 170 (1895). When, however, the court's purpose in imposing sanctions is to "coerce [an individual's] future compliance, we have traditionally regarded the contempt as civil contempt." State v. Martin, 555 N.W.2d 899, 900 (Minn.1996). The imposition of civil/remedial contempt is used to vindicate the opposing party's rights. Minn. State Bar Ass'n, 311 Minn. at 285, 248 N.W.2d at 741.
Contempt can be either direct or constructive. Minn. Stat. § 588.01, subd. 1 (2012). Direct contempt occurs in the immediate presence of the court. Id., subd. 3. In contrast, constructive contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court. Id., subd. 3. Here it is clear that Jones was not in the immediate presence of the court on the night in question and so any possible criminal contempt of court would have been constructive, not direct.
A court may summarily punish direct contempt, Minn.Stat. § 588.03 (2012), while punishment of constructive contempt requires additional procedural safeguards, see Tatum, 556 N.W.2d at 545 n. 3. "Constructive contempt proceedings for punitive purposes entitle the accused to procedural safeguards including prosecution by the state, trial by jury, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. Constructive punitive contempt orders require a "written complaint which is a signed statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." In re Welfare of A.W., 399 N.W.2d at 225. In addition, "an affidavit of the facts constituting the contempt shall be presented to the court or
The Minnesota legislature has defined which acts are punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony. The legislature has identified that the following acts may constitute misdemeanor criminal contempt:
Minn.Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2. Markedly, the majority of section 588.20, subdivision 2, addresses the consequences for actively offending the dignity and authority of the court by hindering the administration of the legal process.
Caselaw explains that section 588.20 is a general limit on the court's inherent authority to summarily punish contempt. In Tatum, the supreme court reviewed the penalty provisions in the contempt statutes after the district court sentenced a defendant to six months' imprisonment for direct contempt of court. 556 N.W.2d at 543. In considering an appropriate penalty for the contempt of court, the supreme court noted that "section 588.20 lists several types of criminal contempt for which the legislature has prescribed a misdemeanor penalty." Id. at 545. In determining the appropriate penalty for direct contempt, the supreme court concluded that the district court had "authority to sentence Tatum for his contempt, even though the contempts statute does not include an applicable penalty provision." Id. at 547.
The supreme court's analysis in Tatum supports our conclusion that the
The legislature has specified some circumstances — none presented here — where criminal contempt may be charged for violation of a court order. Minnesota law enumerates a limited number of circumstances when a court may impose a contempt penalty for violating a court order. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. §§ 518B.01, subd. 14(b) ("A violation of an order for protection shall also constitute contempt of court and be subject to the penalties provided in chapter 588."); 518.1781(f) ("Contempt of court and all statutory remedies for child support and parenting time enforcement may be imposed by the court at the six-month hearing for noncompliance by either party[.]"); 617.86 (2012) ("Whoever violates a temporary injunction, permanent injunction, or abatement order granted under [the nuisance statutes] may be adjudged in contempt of court.").
In considering the purpose and development of Minnesota's contempt penalty, it is clear that the contempt power is an inherently judicial function, albeit limited in part by the legislature, intended for prudent use to aid in the orderly administration of the judicial process. Binder, 190 Minn. at 313, 251 N.W. at 668; see Hampton v. Hampton, 303 Minn. 500, 502, 229 N.W.2d 139, 140-41 (1975) ("In considering the exercise of contempt power by the court, we have said that the court's power is arbitrary, born of necessity, and must be exercised with great prudence."). The distinctions in the purpose and nature of the contempt penalty and our corresponding caselaw underscore that the contempt power is an extraordinary remedy intended to enforce the authority of the court and preserve the legal process. We do not see how the prosecution's practice of routinely bringing contempt-of-court charges for alleged probation violations is necessary to vindicate the judiciary's authority or to preserve the legal process.
A specific legal process is already prescribed for addressing probation
The state also maintains that Minn.Stat. § 388.051, subd. 1(c) (2012), read in conjunction with section 588.20, gives it authority to bring contempt charges for probation violations because no rule or case prohibits this. Minnesota Statutes section 388.051, subdivision 1(c), gives the county attorney authority to "[p]rosecute felonies, including the drawing of indictments found by the grand jury, and, to the extent prescribed by law, gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, [and] petty misdemeanors." We do not question the authority of the county attorney to prosecute criminal contempt charges when properly initiated. Here, however, the issue is whether a prosecutor may bring criminal charges for an alleged probation violation, and we agree with the district court that the prosecutor may not do so. As previously discussed, we do not read section 588.20 to provide the necessary statutory authorization to charge probation violators with contempt. Cf. State v. Walsh, 495 N.W.2d 602, 606 (Minn. 1993) (describing the "prosecutor's inherently unique role in the criminal justice system, which mandates that the prosecutor not act as a zealous advocate for criminal punishment, but as the representative of the people in an effort to seek justice").
The purpose of probation in Minnesota is "to deter further criminal behavior, punish the offender, help provide reparation to crime victims and their communities, and provide offenders with opportunities for rehabilitation." Minn.Stat. § 609.02, subd. 15 (2012). Minnesota law prescribes specific remedies and procedures to address violations of probation. See Minn.Stat. § 609.14; Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.04. Contempt of court is not a statutory remedy for a probation violation.
Minnesota Statutes section 609.14 and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.04 generally address consequences and intermediate sanctions that may be imposed by the district court when a defendant violates a condition of probation. If a probation violation occurs, probation revocation proceedings are initiated by the submission of a report, typically drafted by a probation agent and detailing the violation, to the district court. See State v. Cottew, 746 N.W.2d 632, 634 (Minn.2008). If the report contains sufficient probable cause to believe that the probationer violated probation, then the district court must issue a summons or warrant to secure the probationer's appearance. Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.04, subd. 1(1). The defendant is then entitled to a revocation hearing to determine whether grounds for revocation exist. State v. Barrientos, 837 N.W.2d 294, 298 (Minn.2013). If the district court finds that the defendant violated a condition of probation, both the statute and rule 27.04 give the district court the options of: (1) continuing the stay of execution and placing "the defendant on probation," (2) ordering "intermediate
Even if a district court finds no violation or declines to order sanctions, the state is left with other remedies. If a probation violation involves conduct that can be prosecuted, the state may, if appropriate, bring additional criminal charges. Here, the state charged Jones with two additional misdemeanors: disorderly conduct and underage consumption. Those additional charges are adequate to redress any public interest in obtaining justice for the conduct of Jones on May 31, 2014.
Moreover, excluding probation violations from the conduct that may be charged by a prosecutor as criminal contempt ensures that noncriminal conduct is not converted into criminal conduct, and the seriousness of criminality of the initial conduct is maintained. For example, a defendant on probation may commit a petty misdemeanor, and that might violate a condition of a previously imposed sentence that the defendant remain law-abiding. If the state were authorized to charge misdemeanor criminal contempt under Minn. Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4), based on the alleged probation violation, the petty-misdemeanor offense would, in effect, be punishable as a misdemeanor offense. The same reasoning would apply if a probationer violated a condition to abstain from alcohol or attend support meetings — noncriminal conduct could become a misdemeanor offense. We can find no authority that gives the prosecutor such power.
Procedural fairness also requires advance notice of potential consequences, and there is no indication that Jones was advised that violating a condition of probation could lead to a charge of criminal contempt.
When a probation violation occurs, involving either criminal or noncriminal conduct, the Minnesota rules and statutes dictate a probation-revocation hearing not a contempt proceeding. See Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.04, subd. 3 (detailing the requirements of a revocation hearing).
The district court did not err in dismissing the criminal contempt charge brought
