
    Argued and submitted October 4,
    the decision of the Court of Appeals and judgment of circuit court reversed and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings October 26, 1989
    In the Matter of the Marriage of DREVERS, Petitioner (below), and DREVERS, Respondent (below). STATE ex rel DREVERS, Respondent on Review, v. DREVERS, Petitioner on Review.
    
    (TC D087-258; CA A48832; SC S36171)
    781 P2d 343
    Jerry B. Hart, McMinnville, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Craig, Brand, Lake & Hart, McMinnville.
    Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this proceeding, the defendant was found in contempt and ordered “placed in the custody of the Yamhill County Sheriff for a period not to exceed 30 days.” The defendant appealed, claiming that the state did not prove that the defendant wilfully disobeyed a court order. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. 95 Or App 582, 770 P2d 619 (1989).

After the trial court’s decision, but before the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Hicks v. Feiock, 485 US 624, 108 S Ct 1423, 99 L Ed 2d 721 (1988), and held that, in criminal contempt cases, the contempt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. After the defendant filed a petition for review, the plaintiff State of Oregon joined in the request that this case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in light of Hicks. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings in light of Hicks v. Feiock, supra.  