DONALD CHANCE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE HONORABLE W. FRED TURNER, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A witness cannot be held in multiple contempts for refusing to answer questions within the same general area of interrogation after initially asserting their right not to answer.
Chance, a witness in a deposition, refused to answer three questions regarding the source, arranger, and packager of marijuana. The trial court held h…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contempt Of Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Chance appeals from an order of contempt adjudging him in contempt for his refusal to answer three questions and sentencing him to three consecutive six-month terms in jail. We affirm in part, reverse in part and modify the sentence accordingly.
In a deposition, taken before the court, Chance, a witness, refused to answer the following questions:
Where did you get the marijuana from? Q- . I did get it from another person and I would rather not name that person at this time. A. * * • * * * * Q. Who placed it there? A. I testified I can’t answer that. ' * * * * * * Q. With whom did you make the arrangements before hand on the packaging of the marijuana? A. I have already said I could not answer that. After each refusal, the judge held Chance in contempt. This was error. Where a witness draws the lines of refusal . . .by declining to answer questions within a generally defined area of interrogation, the prosecutor cannot multiply contempts by further questions within that area.
Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66, 73, 78 S.Ct. 128, 133, 2 L.Ed.2d 95 (1957).
The questions here clearly fell within the same subject area and defendant had indicated he would not answer questions regarding this area. Only one adjudication of contempt was proper. Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of contempt for Chance’s refusal to answer the first question, reverse the subsequent adjudications and modify the sentence to one six-month term in jail.
McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lundy v. State, 596 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…d States, 355 U.S. 66, 78 S.Ct. 128, 2 L.Ed.2d 95 (1957); In re Tierney, 328 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Haupt v. State, 499 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Duff v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 386 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Chance v. State, 382 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The state also argues that the amendment of Florida Statute Section 775.021(4) modified the applicable law. That amendment, imposed following the supreme court’s decision in Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987), restrict…
Authorities Cited
- Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1957)