RODNEY THAXTON, 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.
An assistant public defender was held in direct contempt and fined $50 for a sarcastic comment during cross-examination. The Florida appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to provide proper due process protections required by criminal procedure rules before adjudging contempt.
The order of contempt and fine is reversed because the trial court violated due process by failing to advise the alleged contemnor of the accusation against him or afford him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt before imposing the sanction.
[1] A trial court must afford a party due process before adjudging them in contempt, including advising them of the accusation and providing an opportunity to show cause why…
[2] A trial court's summary finding of contempt without affording the alleged contemnor an opportunity to be heard violates due process.
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“From the manner, inflection, volume, and attitude of the assistant public defender at the time of uttering the comment, the trial court might have determined that the comment constituted 'back talk' calculated to frustrate and diminish the court's authority during the conduct of a jury trial.”
Establishes that while the contempt finding might have been substantively justified, proper procedure was not followed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring cross-examination of a state witness, the assistant public defender read a selected portion of the witness's deposition for impeachment purpose…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
An assistant public defender appeals an order of direct contempt which fined him the sum of fifty dollars and withheld adjudication. During the cross-examination of a refractory state’s witness, the assistant read a selected portion of the witness’s deposition in an effort to impeach him. Then the following colloquy occurred:
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Judge, I would ask that he read down a little further to make the question complete to line 23. ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: Well, Judge, I’m going to object to the prosecutor’s speaking objection. She knows they are improper. THE COURT: Excuse me. Go ahead and finish it. ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: What are we speaking of now? THE COURT: The questions through lines 23 or 24. ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: Your Honor, I do not think this is the proper way. This is impeachment material. May we have a side bar? THE COURT: No. ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: What is it the Court wants me to read? THE COURT: Go through all the questions and answers until you reach the end of the page. ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: Well, we can read the entire thing, read the rest of the book. THE COURT: Now we will have a side bar. (Thereupon, counsel for the respective parties and the court reporter approached the bench and the following proceedings were heard outside the hearing of the jury:) THE COURT: That just cost you $50. ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: What is that, Your Honor? THE COURT: Your comment. ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: I’m asking the Court— THE COURT: Sir, I just held you in contempt of court. I fined you $50. Let us proceed with the trial. ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: May I address the Court with regard to this issue? THE COURT: No, we can address it later. From the manner, inflection, volume, and attitude of the assistant public defender at the time of uttering the comment, the trial court might have determined that the comment constituted “back talk” calculated to frustrate and diminish the court’s authority during the conduct of a jury trial. See Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 95 So. 755 (1923). On this record, it is apparent that the trial court did not afford the alleged contemnor due process as enunciated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. The trial court did not advise the defendant of the accusation against him or afford him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt before he, in fact, was.
For these reasons, the order is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patz v. State, 691 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…endant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. (Emphasis added). See also, Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Thaxton v. State, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); State ex rel Garlovsky v. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The case law in this area is very clear that strict adherence to the rule is absolutely imperative. “Scr…
-
Poitier v. Spears, 750 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…contempt proceedings and requires “scrupulous compliance ... because its provisions constitute the essence of due process.” Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Thaxton v. State, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, the trial court did not enter an order adjudicating the defendant in direct criminal contempt and did not follow the mandatory requirements of the rule. Accordingly, the petitioner’s conviction on the contempt charge must b…
-
Jackson v. State, 626 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…se to show why he or she 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. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830; Thaxton v. State, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); State ex rel. Garlovsky v. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) is [*1051] uncannily similar both as to the conten…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1923)