GORDON EARL HAUPT, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Gordon Haupt was held in contempt for refusing to answer questions at a preliminary hearing in a homicide case, even after being granted use immunity. The trial court imposed two consecutive six-month sentences, but the appellate court reversed one sentence, holding that Haupt's refusals on consecutive days constituted a single contempt offense rather than separate violations.
Haupt's conduct in its entirety constituted one contempt offense. Because the questions asked on March 6 were essentially the same as those on March 5 and concerned the same subject matter, the refusals should not be treated as separate violations. The trial court's imposition of two consecutive six-month sentences was therefore improper.
[1] A refusal to answer questions on a subsequent day, when the questions are substantially the same as those previously refused and confined to the same subject matter, cons…
[2] A defendant's refusal to answer questions after being granted use immunity and warned of contempt does not constitute a continuing offense when the questions asked on a l…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is our view that Haupt's conduct in its entirety constituted one contempt.”
Establishes the core holding that multiple refusals to answer substantially identical questions on different days constitute a single contempt offense, not separate violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a preliminary hearing on March 5, 1986, in a homicide case, the state asked Haupt questions about Steven Letter visiting his trailer and whethe…
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
FRANK, Judge.
In the course of a preliminary hearing held on March 5, 1986, in a homicide proceeding involving Richard Prentiss, the state asked the appellant, Gordon Earl Haupt, the following question: “Mr. Haupt, on October 11, 1985, did you have an individual by the name of Steven Letter come by your trailer?”
Haupt invoked his privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer. The state immediately announced that it granted Haupt use immunity. The trial court affirmed that Haupt was immunized and advised him that he was required to answer. Haupt again declined answering the question. The trial court informed Haupt that he could be found in contempt, and Haupt acknowledged the risk. Haupt was then asked: “Mr. Haupt, on October 11, 1985, did you shoot and kill Steven Letter?” He refused to answer and the state repeated its grant of use immunity. Following the trial court’s further contempt warning Haupt was asked whether Letter had attempted to rob him; Haupt invoked his privilege and stated that he wanted transactional, not use, immunity. The trial court found Haupt in contempt, committed him to the custody of the sheriff and set a sentencing hearing for a later date.
The next day, March 6, 1986, Haupt was returned to the trial court, was again given use immunity with the trial court’s approval, and the questioning resumed; he refused to answer the two questions asked of him on the previous day. The trial court again found him in contempt.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed two consecutive six month sentences but offered Haupt the opportunity to purge the contempt by truthfully answering the question.1
The trial court’s determination to sentence Haupt to two consecutive six month terms of imprisonment appears to be bottomed on the view that his refusal to answer the state’s questions on March 6 was not a continuing offense but constituted a separate and independent act of contumacy. It is our view that Haupt’s conduct in its entirety constituted one contempt. Duff v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 386 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The questions asked on March 6 were essentially the same as those asked on March 5. On the second occasion the questions were confined to the same subject matter inquired about at Haupt’s initial refusal to provide responsive answers. See In re Tierney, 328 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s imposition of the second six month sen tence and direct that Haupt be discharged from that sentence.
DANAHY, C.J., and SANDERLIN, J., concur. . Haupt has not challenged and we have neither considered nor do we pass upon any aspect of this matter involving the nature of the contempt, i.e. civil or criminal, or the procedures followed by the trial court at the adjudicating or sentencing stage. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lundy v. State, 596 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…elf, does not limit the appellant’s ability to exercise his fifth amendment privilege as to the entire subject. Yates v. United 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 applicab…
Authorities Cited
- Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1966)
- In re Tierney, 328 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Duff v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 386 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)