R.C., A JUVENILE, 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.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a finding of direct criminal contempt against a juvenile who kicked a courtroom door and used profanity toward a bailiff immediately before his delinquency hearing. The court held that contemptuous conduct need not occur inside the courtroom if it is directed at a court officer in the execution of duty and is calculated to lessen the court's authority or dignity.
The trial judge properly found R.C. guilty of direct criminal contempt. Contemptuous conduct need not occur strictly within the courtroom if it is directed at an officer of the court in the execution of his duty and is calculated to lessen the court's authority or dignity.
[1] Scatological language directed at an officer of the court in the due execution of their duty, even if occurring technically outside the courtroom, can constitute direct c…
[2] Conduct occurring in the immediate vicinity of the courtroom and directed at court personnel performing their duties may be considered contemptuous.
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“the scatological language directed at an officer of the court in the due execution of his duty was clearly 'calculated to lessen [the court's] authority or its dignity,' and was therefore contemptuous”
Establishes the legal standard for contempt—that language need not be directed at the judge himself or occur strictly in the courtroom if directed at a court officer performing his duties and calculated to diminish court authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.C., a juvenile, was entering the courtroom for his delinquency hearing when he kicked the courtroom door. When the bailiff following him told him no…
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 Direct Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
On the way into the courtroom for his delinquency hearing, the juvenile appellant kicked the courtroom door. When the bailiff, who was following him, told him not to do that, R.C. told him in return to “go f~k yourself.”1 We hold that the trial judge properly found, on the basis of this conduct, that R.C. was guilty of direct criminal contempt. In our view, even though the incident occurred technically outside the courtroom, the scatological language directed at an officer of the court in the due execution of his duty was clearly “calculated to lessen [the court’s] authority or its dignity,” and was therefore contemptuous. Ex parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381, 389,173 So. 275,279 (1937); see Woody v. State ex rel. Allen, 572 P. 2d 241 (Okla.Crim.App.1977) (defendant leaving courtroom making obscene gestures and threatening police officer-witnesses found to be willfully contemptuous); Estes v. State, 192 Miss. 400, 6 So. 2d 132 (1942) (witness gritting teeth and scowling at district attorney in threatening manner in courtroom and stating “I’ll see you when you come down” constitutes contempt); see also Carroll v. State, 350 So. 2d 723 (Ala.Crim.App.1977) (venireperson using vulgar language to court reporter in courtroom while judge temporarily absent constitutes constructive contempt); People v. Reeves, 23 Ill.App.3d 579, 319 N.E. 2d 567 (1974) (respondent striking assistant state attorney in corridor outside courtroom constitutes indirect criminal contempt).2
Affirmed.
. The judge was also in the area and himself heard the offending remark. After the hearing, which was therefore properly conducted summarily under Fla.RJuv.P. 8.285(a), see Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.830, he concluded that the statement had been directed only at the bailiff, and not at him.
. This case does not involve the perceived procedural deficiency, and we do not share the self-tortured reticence to enforce the trial court's contempt authority which together drove the decision in Schenck v. State, 645 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Indeed, this court has very recently PCA'd a determination that a defendant who, almost exactly like Schenck, said "f-k you” as she was leaving the courtroom, was in contempt. See Best v. State, 648 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fredrick Bernard Alvis v. State, 764 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…eals from two separate judgments and sentences for direct criminal contempt based on his use of obscene language in open court. While the evidence justifies findings that in each instance, Alvis was indeed criminally contemptuous, see R.C. v. State, 648 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review denied, 659 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1995), citing Best v. State, 648 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Martinez v. State, 339 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), approved, 346 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1977), the record shows that the trial judge…
-
Emilio Lombardo Ippolito and Susan L. Mokdad v. State, 678 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ollowing authority, the correct standard to be followed here is that which has been applied on numerous occasions where the focus was upon the contemnor’s intent to embarrass or lessen the dignity and authority of the trial court. See R.C. v. State, 648 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA)(scatological language addressed to an officer of the court was contemptuous as it was “calculated to lessen [the court’s] authority or its dignity”)(quoting Ex parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381, 389,173 So. 275, 279 (Fla.1937)), rev. den…
-
Paul v. Hoeffer, 696 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e appears headed for the lowest common denominator. Nevertheless, while sexist, reprehensible and disgusting, the name calling in the hallway was not indirect contempt. See Via [*1266] v. State, 633 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); cf. R.C. v. State, 648 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 659 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1995). However, the element of threat or intimidation to an attorney who is an officer of the court justifies the trial court’s conclusion. See Murrell v. State, 595 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992);…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1937)
- Schenck v. State, 645 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)