No "inherent Authority" to Summarily Impose Monetary Sanction on Attorney Who Fails to Appear for Scheduled Hearing

In re Crag E. Cascarano, Appellant, State of Minnesota, Plantiff v. Mason, Minn.Ct.App., 10/19/2015.  This isn't a criminal opinion, but a tale about a criminal attorney who had the misfortune to miss a scheduled court appearance before a judge who was apparently having a really bad day.  Not only that, the lawyer, Mr. Cascarano, thought he had the hearing covered by a colleague only the colleague forgot to mark his calendar.  When no one appeared on behalf of Mr. Mason the judge slapped Mr. Cascarano with one hundred ($100.00) dollars in "court costs".

Then things got ugly.  Mr. Cascarano got the chief judge of the district to disqualify the judge who'd imposed the "court costs" from presiding over the criminal trial, and to stay the one hundred bucks.  The chief also said that "court costs" could be imposed to punish an attorney's scheduling error in a criminal case only after compliance with applicable contempt statutes.  Well.  The judge who'd imposed the "court costs" shot back that the chief had exceeded his authority to stay the order imposing the "court costs" and ordered Mr. Cascarano to pay up "immediately."  The judge also said he wasn't "punishing" Mr. Cascarano but was relying on the court's "inherent authority."  Mr. Cascarano then had to run up to the court of appeals and get that court to stay enforcement of the "pay immediately" order.

Whew.  

Chief Judge Cleary rejects the trial court's claim of inherent power to impose "court costs" for accidentally screwing up a court appearance.  Call it what you like, Chief Judge Cleary said that the $100.00 was punitive because it was intended to punish Mr. Cascarano's failure to appear at a hearing.  This behavior did not occur in the trial court's presence so if it is contempt it is constructive contempt.  A charge of constructive contempt may not be punished summarily.  Rather, the state must prosecute constructive contempt at which the alleged contemnor is entitled to a trial by jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether Mr. Cascarano's failure to appear - or have a colleague appear in his stead - was contemptuous or excusable is a jury question.