ROGER A. SHIELDS, APPELLANT.
v.
LORA L. SHIELDS, 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.
Roger Shields was convicted of indirect criminal contempt for allegedly violating a domestic violence injunction by placing a personal notice in a newspaper. The appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Shields actually placed the notice.
The court held that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shields placed the notice in the newspaper. While testimony established that the notice embarrassed the appellee and Mr. Karr, there was insufficient evidence of Shields' guilt of the underlying violation.
[1] In an indirect criminal contempt proceeding, the movant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant willfully violated a court order.
[2] A conviction for indirect criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the prohibited act to occur.
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“In an indirect criminal contempt proceeding, the movant must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant willfully violated the court order.”
Establishes the required burden of proof for indirect criminal contempt violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court issued an amended injunction against Shields prohibiting him from committing acts of domestic violence or harassment against his former …
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 Willful Violation Of Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Roger A. Shields, challenges the trial court’s judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of indirect criminal contempt of court for violating a domestic violence injunction. We reverse.
The trial court issued an amended injunction against the appellant enjoining him from committing any act of domestic violence on the appellee or Mr. 'Karr. The appellee was the appellant’s former wife and Mr. Karr was the appellee’s companion. The injunction further restrained the appellant from harassing the appellee or Mr. Karr directly or indirectly and at any time or place.
On August 30, 1992, a personal notice addressing the appellee and Mr. Karr’s relationship appeared in the Winter Haven News Chief. The appellee and Mr. Karr considered the personal notice to be harassing and Mr. Karr filed a petition for order to show cause alleging that the appellant violated the injunction by placing the notice in the newspaper. During the evidentiary hearing on the petition for order .to show cause, the appellee and Mr. Karr testified that they were harassed and embarrassed as a result of the personal notice. The appellant moved for a directed verdict based on the state’s failure to present testimony proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant placed the notice in the newspaper. The trial court denied the motion and found that the appellant caused the notice to appear in the Winter Haven News Chief and that he therefore violated the injunction for protection. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
The appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he placed the personal notice in the Winter Haven News Chief. We agree with the appellant.
In an indirect criminal contempt proceeding, the movant must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant willfully violated the court order. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985). See also Hamilton v. State, 363 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, State v. Hamilton, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979). In the instant case, the testimony presented during the evidentiary hearing addressed only the relationship between Mr. Karr and the appellee and whether or not the personal notice embarrassed them. There was no testimony as to who caused the personal notice to appear in the Winter Haven News Chief other than the state’s contention that the appellant’s name was printed at the end of the notice. Therefore, we conclude that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of indirect criminal contempt of court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for the entry of a judgment in favor of the appellant.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graves v. State, 872 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…vidence was sufficient for the trial court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Graves violated the domestic violence injunction and to find him in indirect criminal contempt. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Shields v. Shields, 636 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Unfortunately, however, once the finding of contempt was made, a series of clerical mistakes occurred before rendition of the final order in this case, which is titled “Order Adjudging Contempt” and which orders and adjudges th…
-
Alan v. State, 39 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…683, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“Neither does M.W.’s admission to prior use of .marijuana constitute indirect crimi [*348] nal contempt unless the use violated a valid court order that was in effect at the time he used the drug.”); Shields v. Shields, 636 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“In an indirect criminal contempt proceeding, the movant must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant willfully violated the court order”). Accord Baker v. United States, 891 A. 2d 208, 215 (D.C.Cir.2006) (“We .…
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Hamilton v. State, 363 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)