BRIAN BRAISTED, 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.
An assistant public defender appeals his conviction for direct criminal contempt based on alleged dramatic courtroom conduct. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial judge's admonition against being "dramatic" was too vague to constitute a specific injunction and that the evidence did not prove the contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court reversed the contempt adjudication, holding that the trial court's admonition lacked sufficient specificity to apprise Braisted of the prohibited behavior, and that the record could not establish the alleged contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the required standard for criminal contempt.
[1] A trial court may not hold an individual in contempt of court for violating an order that does not clearly and definitely apprise the person of its command and direction.
[2] The standard of proof for criminal contempt proceedings is beyond a reasonable doubt.
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“A trial court may not hold an individual in contempt of court for violating an order which does not clearly and definitely make the person aware of its command and direction.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that contempt orders must be sufficiently specific and clear to satisfy due process.
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 criminal jury trial, the judge told Braisted he was tired of his facial expressions and "playing to the crowd," and warned him before closing…
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.
Brian Braisted, an assistant public defender, appeals from an adjudication of direct criminal contempt of court and a $200 fine. We reverse.
During a criminal jury trial, the trial court commented to appellant that it was tired of appellant’s facial expressions and of appellant’s “playing to the crowd.” Pri-or to closing argument, the judge told appellant, “If you would do something dramatic, I might be dramatic also, you know.” Appellant then proceeded with his closing argument. When the jury retired to deliberate, the judge attempted to proceed with a contempt hearing against appellant under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which addresses direct criminal contempt. The prosecutor, however, asked the court to issue an order to show cause why appellant should not be held in direct criminal contempt. The court stated:
I’ll give you the opportunity. Would you type up my comments to Mr. Brai-sted this morning that I was prepared, somebody told me to be prepared for some dramatics or some conduct, that I was going to really be surprised and that I personally talked to him about it prior to the argument that I did [] not want any surprises or anything dramatic, that I would be more dramatic.
Appellant then presented a defense to the court. After trial was concluded and the trial court excused the jury, the court advised appellant that it found him in direct criminal contempt of court. The court subsequently signed an order to show cause and set the cause for hearing. After the hearing, the court adjudged appellant guilty of direct criminal contempt.
We hold that the trial court’s admonition to appellant not to be “dramatic” lacked an injunction sufficiently specific to apprise appellant of the behavior being enjoined. “A trial court may not hold an individual in contempt of court for violating an order which does not clearly and definitely make the person aware of its command and direction.” Barnes v. State, 588 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); American Pioneer Cas. Ins. Co. v. Henrion, 523 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Had a proper warning been given, this court has nevertheless recognized that the standard for criminal contempt proceedings is higher than the standard of proof that is required in civil contempt proceedings. In the latter, a preponderance of the evidence will suffice, while in the former, the conduct must be provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Mrha v. Circuit Court, 537 So. 2d 182, 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). From this record we cannot conclude that appellant intentionally and willfully disregarded any specific court rulings, much less so beyond a reasonable doubt. We reverse the trial court’s adjudication of direct criminal contempt. Consequently, we need not address appellant’s remaining points on appeal.
HERSEY, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levine v. State, 650 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…oldstein simply denied this request. These two rulings fail to clearly and definitely make Levine aware of the court’s command and direction. Therefore, these two rulings cannot be viewed as a sufficiently specific injunction. See Braisted v. State, 614 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to set aside the judgment finding Levine guilty of direct criminal contempt of court and imposing a $500 fine. REVERSED AND REMANDED. FARMER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C.…
-
Forbes v. State, 933 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…etree v. State ex rel. Marsh, 89 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1956); Kramer v. State, 800 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Tide v. State, 804 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Levine v. State, 650 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)); Braisted v. State, 614 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Moreover, our review of a contempt judgment is the same as it is for any judgment of criminal conviction. As explained above, criminal contempt requires some willful act or omission calculated to embarrass or hinder the co…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. R.H., 819 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…he standard of proof, for example, the distinction is important because criminal contempt may be imposed only if proved beyond a reasonable doubt whereas civil contempt does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Parisi; Braisted v. State, 614 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (noting, "[T]he standard for criminal contempt proceedings is higher than the standard of proof that is required in civil contempt proceedings. In the latter, a preponderance of the evidence will suffice, while in the former…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 523 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Barnes v. State, 588 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- United States Secret Serv. Special Agent John Mrha v. Cir. Court, 537 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)