THOMAS SCHAFFER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a contempt conviction for refusing to answer questions despite transactional immunity, holding that although the proceedings should have been characterized as indirect rather than direct criminal contempt, the defendant received all procedural protections required by Rule 3.840, making the mislabeling harmless error.
Although contempt proceedings for refusal to answer immunized questions should be characterized as indirect criminal contempt under Rule 3.840 rather than direct criminal contempt, the mislabeling constitutes harmless error when the defendant received all substantive protections afforded by Rule 3.840.
[1] When a defendant is granted transactional immunity and refuses to answer questions, the contempt proceeding must be characterized and conducted as indirect criminal conte…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchaffer refused to answer questions in a state investigation after being granted transactional immunity under Florida Statutes Section 914.04, result…
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 Transactional Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals an adjudication of contempt entered because of his refusal to answer questions in a state investigation after being granted transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1981).
He contends that the proceedings culminating in the adjudication are fatally defective in that they were conducted as are those for direct criminal contempt. There being no urgent or compelling reasons to require the defendant to forthwith give his immunized testimony, compare United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 95 S.Ct. 1802, 44 L.Ed.2d 186 (1975), he argues that according to the doctrine of Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162, 86 S.Ct. 352,15 L.Ed.2d 240 (1965), he was entitled to the panoply of rights granted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 to persons charged with indirect criminal contempt.
Although we are entirely in agreement with the defendant’s contention that his alleged contumacious act should have been charged and proceeded against as an indirect criminal contempt under Rule 3.840, Pendley v. State, 392 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), a review of the record discloses that while the proceedings were expedited, the defendant did have the benefit of all the rights afforded by Rule 3.840. Consequently, the recitation in the judgment that conviction was for direct criminal contempt pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 amounted to mere harmless error. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pedroso v. State, 450 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…low the court’s order to comply with the subpoena duces tecum, was susceptible to either criminal or civil contempt proceedings. See Carter; Little Beaver Theatre, Inc. v. State ex rel. Gerstein, 259 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Schaffer v. State, 429 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Since the nature of the conduct is not determinative of the character of the order, a determination must be made of whether the order is civil or criminal. Pugliese. The court’s use of the word “civil” and the inclusion of a pur…
-
Edge-Gougen v. State, 182 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…tion in finding the Appellant in direct criminal contempt. ’ However, the State argues that the trial court’s finding of .direct criminal contempt was harmless because the Appellant was guilty of .indirect criminal contempt. See, Schaffer v. State, 429 So. 2d 372, 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (finding that a conviction for direct criminal contempt was harmless when the appellant should have been convicted for indirect criminal contempt and the appellant received all the rights afforded by Florida Rule of Criminal…
Authorities Cited
- Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1965)
- United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309 (U.S. 1975)
- Pendley v. State, 392 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)