Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 18-1801 (2026)
Criminal contempts.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Criminal contempts.
Every person guilty of any contempt of court, of either of the following kinds, is guilty of a misdemeanor:
1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of any court of justice, in immediate view and presence of the court and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority.
2. Behavior of the like character committed in the presence of any referee, while actually engaged in any trial or hearing, pursuant to the order of any court, or in the presence of any jury, while actually sitting for the trial of a cause, or upon any inquest or other proceeding authorized by law.
3. Any breach of the peace, noise or other disturbance directly tending to interrupt the proceedings of any court.
4. Wilful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued by any court.
5. Resistance wilfully offered by any person to the lawful order or process of any court.
6. The contumacious and unlawful refusal of any person to be sworn as a witness; or, when so sworn, the like refusal to answer any material question.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 55 P.3d 304 (Idaho 2002).
Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 55 P.3d 304 (Idaho 2002). “Idaho Code § 18-1801 makes certain kinds of contemptuous conduct a misdemeanor.”
State v. Chapman, 739 P.2d 310 (Idaho 1987). “[2] Chapman was also charged with criminal contempt of court under I.C. § 18-1801(4). [3] It is evident that the acts of Chapman which violated the temporary custody order are the identical acts which lead to Chapman's conviction on the kidnapping offense.”
State v. Talmage, 658 P.2d 920 (Idaho 1983). “If that be thought insufficient, I point to the court's letter of April 2, 1979, wherein it is made absolute that defendant was not at any time incarcerated for his refusal to testify at the first trial when he voluntarily took the stand: "The Court believes that the defendant…”
Mds Investments, LLC v. State, 65 P.3d 197 (Idaho 2003). “On August 21, 2000, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the State in which it added claims for declaratory relief holding that Idaho Code §§ 18-1801 , 18-3802, and 18-3810(1) are unconstitutional and for injunctive relief prohibiting the State from seizing…”
State v. Luis Adame Juarez, 356 P.3d 384 (Idaho 2015). “Because the procedure for a prosecution of the misdemeanor crime of contempt charge is markedly different from a proceeding on a motion for contempt under Idaho Criminal Rule 42, we feel it necessary to address misdemeanor criminal contempt under Idaho Code section 18-1801.”
Katseanes v. Katseanes, 522 P.3d 1236 (Idaho 2023). “The Camp court stated, “[s]uch order was valid and thus, pursuant to I.C. § 18-1801(4), the appellant was guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of an order lawfully issued by the court.”
Judy Charney v. Dennis Charney, 356 P.3d 355 (Idaho 2015). “Therefore, absent legislative action, we hold that a criminal contempt sanction cannot be imposed for contempt unless the contempt proceedings are initiated within one year of the commission of the contempt.”
Abell v. Abell, 534 P.3d 957 (Idaho 2023). “Accordingly, the summary judgment procedure under Rule 56 plainly does not apply, and cannot be employed, to adjudicate non- summary civil or criminal contempt under Rule 75.”
State v. Andrew Garcia, 355 P.3d 635 (Idaho 2015). “Therefore, the original exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Idaho Code section 20-505 is not implicated.”
Barnett v. Reed, 460 P.2d 744 (Idaho 1969). “Such order was valid and thus, pursuant to I.C. § 18-1801(4), the appellant was guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of an order lawfully issued by the court.”
Dutton v. Dist. Court of Third Jud. Dist. Ex Rel. Cnty. of Owyhee, 518 P.2d 1182 (Idaho 1974). ““Where the primary purpose is to preserve the court’s authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders, the contempt is criminal.”
State v. Matt Eugene Ruck, 314 P.3d 157 (Idaho 2013). “State, 136 Idaho 280, 284-85 , 32 P.3d 672, 676-77 (Ct.App.2001). Likewise, the violation of a condition of probation could be punished as contempt, I.”
— Idaho Code § 18-1801(4) — 5 cases
State v. Chapman, 739 P.2d 310 (Idaho 1987). “[2] Chapman was also charged with criminal contempt of court under I.C. § 18-1801(4). [3] It is evident that the acts of Chapman which violated the temporary custody order are the identical acts which lead to Chapman's conviction on the kidnapping offense.”
Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 55 P.3d 304 (Idaho 2002). “Idaho Code § 18-1801 makes certain kinds of contemptuous conduct a misdemeanor.”
Katseanes v. Katseanes, 522 P.3d 1236 (Idaho 2023). “The Camp court stated, “[s]uch order was valid and thus, pursuant to I.C. § 18-1801(4), the appellant was guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of an order lawfully issued by the court.”
Barnett v. Reed, 460 P.2d 744 (Idaho 1969). “Such order was valid and thus, pursuant to I.C. § 18-1801(4), the appellant was guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of an order lawfully issued by the court.”
State v. Matt Eugene Ruck, 314 P.3d 157 (Idaho 2013). “State, 136 Idaho 280, 284-85 , 32 P.3d 672, 676-77 (Ct.App.2001). Likewise, the violation of a condition of probation could be punished as contempt, I.”
— Idaho Code § 18-1801(6) — 1 case
State v. Talmage, 658 P.2d 920 (Idaho 1983). “If that be thought insufficient, I point to the court's letter of April 2, 1979, wherein it is made absolute that defendant was not at any time incarcerated for his refusal to testify at the first trial when he voluntarily took the stand: "The Court believes that the defendant…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.