JAMES R. KRAMER, 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.
Attorney James Kramer appeals a trial court order finding him in willful civil contempt and imposing a $2,000 fine for making statements to the media regarding a pending family law case. The appellate court reverses, holding that any contempt should have been classified as indirect criminal contempt requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the fine exceeded statutory limits.
The court reversed the contempt finding because any violation constituted indirect criminal contempt, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not the preponderance standard applied to civil contempt. Additionally, even if criminal contempt were established, the $2,000 fine exceeded the statutory maximum of $500 under Florida Statutes section 775.02.
[1] A contempt sanction is civil if it is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant.
[2] A contempt sanction is criminal if it is intended to punish for an intentional violation of a court order.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 purpose of criminal contempt ... is to punish. Criminal contempt proceedings are utilized to vindicate the authority of the court or to punish for an intentional violation of an order of the court.”
Establishes the distinction between criminal and civil contempt based on purpose and intent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKramer represented Stephen Rotell in family law proceedings involving custody of two minor sons. Following a suicide attempt by the former wife that r…
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 Contempt Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
James R. Kramer appeals the trial court order finding him in wilful civil contempt and fining him up to a maximum of $2000.1 We reverse.
Kramer is an attorney who represented Stephen Rotell in postdissolution family law actions involving his former wife, Kristina Gaime, regarding, inter alia, custody of the parties’ two minor sons, Matthew and Adam Rotell. Prior to a hearing in the family law action, Gaime attempted to kill herself and the two boys and did kill Matthew. Soon thereafter, the trial court entered an order limiting public comments by all attorneys associated with the case. Pursuant to a motion to intervene filed by The Tampa Tribune through its parent company, the trial court modified the order to prohibit the subject attorneys “from making comments to the media relating to the pending dependency case pertaining to the minor child, Adam Rotell,” and from “disclosing what occurred during those portions of the family law proceeding from which the media were excluded pursuant to this court’s April 15, 1999 Order on Notice of Intent to Partially Close Judicial Proceedings.”
The trial court sua sponte entered an order to show cause directing Kramer to explain why he should not be found in wilful civil contempt of the court’s order. After a hearing, Kramer was found in wilful civil contempt for having spoken to the print media on several occasions.
If contempt sanctions were appropriate against Kramer, they would have been sanctions for indirect criminal contempt. The contempt would have been indirect because it occurred outside the presence of the trial court. It would have been criminal contempt because the trial court imposed a fine on Kramer that was intended to punish him for the statements he made to the print media.
We have previously explained that “[t]he purpose of criminal contempt ... is to punish. Criminal contempt proceedings are utilized to vindicate the authority of the court or to punish for an intentional violation of an order of the court.” On the other hand, a contempt sanction is considered civil if it “is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant.”
Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 364 (Fla.2000) (citations omitted).
The trial court erred in finding Kramer in contempt. Kramer was found in wilful civil contempt pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof which applies to civil contempt proceedings. In the Interest of S.L.T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). However, as previously stated, Kramer could only have been found in indirect criminal contempt. The burden of proof in criminal contempt proceedings is beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; Parisi, 769 So. 2d 359. There simply was not sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Kramer had committed indirect criminal contempt. A review of Kramer’s statements supports his position that they concerned the pending criminal case about which he was not prohibited to speak and that those comments, in any event, were not wilful. Kramer was trying to diffuse the media' attention surrounding his client and his client’s surviving minor child.
Even if the evidence had supported a finding of indirect criminal contempt, the fine was excessive. Contempt is a common law crime in Florida. Section 38.22, Florida Statutes (1999), authorizes courts to punish contempt but contains no penalty provision. Section 775.02, Florida Statutes (1999), states: “When there exists no such provision by statute, the court shall proceed to punish such offense by fine or imprisonment, but the fine shall not exceed $500, nor the imprisonment 12 months.” See Thomas A. Edison College, Inc. v. State Bd. of Indep. Colleges and Univs., 411 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Accordingly, we reverse the order finding Kramer in contempt.
FULMER, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur. . Kramer was fined $100 per word for every word attributed to him in several enumerated newspaper articles. The number of words clearly exceeded 20; thus, the fine imposed would have been $2000.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forbes v. State, 933 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…676 (Fla.1973). Thus, a person charged with criminal contempt is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Demetree 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…
-
Graves v. State, 821 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…provides that upon transmittal of the record and request of the local public defender, the Public Defender for the Tenth Judicial Circuit shall “handle all felony appeals” in this district. Contempt is a common law crime in Florida, Kramer v. State, 800 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), which, although recognized by statute, is not specifically classified by statute as either a felony or a misdemeanor. See § 38.22, Fla. Stat. (2001). In order to determine whether contempt is a felony for purposes of section 27.…
Authorities Cited
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000)
- In the Interest of S. L. T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Thomas A. Edison Coll., Inc. v. State Bd. of Indep. Colleges & Univs., 411 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)