WADE LAREMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The appellant was held in contempt of court for refusing to answer deposition questions despite immunity, claiming a privacy right violation. The court sentenced him to four months in jail without allowing him to present evidence of mitigating circumstances, which the appellate court found violated procedural requirements.
The trial court erred by failing to afford the appellant an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances before imposing the contempt sentence. The proper procedure requires the court to inform the defendant of the accusation, inquire whether he has cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty, and allow presentation of excusing or mitigating circumstances.
[1] A trial court must afford a defendant the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances before adjudicating guilt and imposing a sentence for contempt.
[2] A defendant must be informed of the accusation against him and given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt and sentenced therefor.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court failed to afford appellant an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances.”
Statement of the reversible error—the core holding that procedural due process was violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Laremore was instructed to answer questions during a deposition in connection with a state investigation of his oral surgeon. Despite being …
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 Summary Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Appellant was instructed by the trial court to answer questions posed by the state during a deposition conducted in connection with a state investigation of appellant’s oral surgeon. Acting under advice of counsel, appellant declined to answer. He maintained that although he had been granted immunity from prosecution by the state, the court order requiring him to respond to questions concerning whether his doctor prescribed methaqualone violated his right to privacy. Appellant was held in contempt and sentenced to serve four months in the Dade County Jail. He contends on appeal that although his attorney was permitted to present legal argument, he was not afforded an opportunity to address the court. The court entertained the following discussion:
MS. COHAN: Mr. Laremore is aware that Your Honor has instructed him to answer the questions and has, in fact, refused to do so. At this time, I would ask Your Honor to hold him in contempt.
MR. LAREMORE: Can I state why?
MR. WINDSOR: I just want the Court to know, obviously, he is not hostile in the attitude that he is expressing to the Court. He’s concerned about that.
THE COURT: No hostility. He’s refusing to obey the order of the Court.
MR. WINDSOR: Those reasons have been stated.
THE COURT: I think it would be a lot better if you didn’t say anything.
MR. WINDSOR: Just for the record, I would object to any sentence being imposed at this time.
THE COURT: On what ground?
MR. WINDSOR: I don’t think — I’m not sure that the Court, at this point, has sufficient information before it to know how punitive the measure should be.
MS. COHAN: It’s direct contempt. It’s summarily punishable.
THE COURT: I’m aware and I’m going to sentence you to four months in the Dade County Jail for direct contempt of this Court. I’m going to stay execution of this sentence pending your right to take an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, (emphasis added).
The trial court failed to afford appellant an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances. McDonald v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Krathen v. State, 310 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Weech v. State, 309 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Moore v. State, 245 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830.1 We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Appellant’s remaining point lacks merit.
Reversed and remanded.
NESBITT, J., dissents.
. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830:
A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based. Prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him and inquire as to whether he has any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the Court and sentenced therefor. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. The judgment
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 559 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…he charge, nor was she given an opportunity to show cause or to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. See Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Laremore v. State, 408 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Jacobs v. State, 327 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The August 15, 1989 order holding Mary Walker in contempt of court, and the sentence thereon, are reversed. We note that further contempt proceedings against the petitioner, i…
-
Tejada v. State, 729 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…he charge, nor was she given an opportunity to show cause or to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. See Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Laremore v. State, 408 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Jacobs v. State, 327 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Walker, 559 So. 2d at 1165. In the instant case, the trial judge, upon calling Mr. Tejada, gave him the opportunity, at that moment, to respond and defend himself. While this…
Authorities Cited
- McDONALD v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Krathen v. State, 310 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Moore v. State, 245 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Weech v. State, 309 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Pine Crest Sch. v. Roudabush, 309 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)