Opinion
30217; CA A29258
Argued and submitted December 20, 1983
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration January 11, 1984
Appeal from Circuit Court, Columbia County.
John F. Hunnicut, Judge.
Robert P. Van Natta, St. Helens, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Van Natta Petersen, St. Helens.
Robert E. Barton, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
The trial court's order finding defendant to be in contempt is inadequate in that it does not identify the statutory basis upon which it is entered. Accordingly, we cannot determine if it was proper.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand, the trial court may wish to consider, inter alia, the impact such decisions as SER Spencer v. Howe, 281 Or. 599, 576 P.2d 4 (1978), have on the procedures that must be followed (and the punishment that can be imposed) with respect to conduct like that of defendant.