CHRISTY JO FLANAGAN, 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.
Christy Jo Flanagan was adjudicated guilty of indirect criminal contempt and sentenced to five and one-half months in jail for conduct as a defense witness in a murder trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the order to show cause failed to meet the procedural requirements of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.840 by not stating the essential facts of the contempt charge.
The order to show cause did not meet the minimum requirements of Rule 3.840 because it failed to state the essential facts constituting the indirect criminal contempt charge and was not accompanied by a sworn affidavit alleging the essential facts. Therefore, the judgment of guilty was reversed.
[1] An order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt must state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged.
[2] The requirements of rule 3.840 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure are satisfied if a sworn affidavit containing the essential facts is attached to the order to sh…
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“the order to show cause did not meet the minimum requirements of rule 3.840 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, we reverse”
Establishes the dispositive procedural defect requiring reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlanagan was a defense witness in a first-degree murder trial of Bruce Sherwood. She made a courtroom gesture expressing support for the defendant and…
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 Indirect Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PADOVANO, J.
This is an appeal from a final order adjudicating the appellant, Christy Jo Flanagan, guilty of indirect criminal contempt and sentencing her to five and one-half months in the county jail. We conclude that the order to show cause did not meet the minimum requirements of rule 3.840 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, we reverse.
The contempt charges arose from the appellant’s conduct as a defense witness in the first-degree murder trial of Bruce Sherwood. It appears from the record that the appellant made a gesture in the courtroom in which she expressed her support for the defendant, and that she subsequently made an extrajudicial comment in which she expressed her anger toward a prosecution witness. The appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that she violated a prior court order and that the judgment must be reversed, in any event, on the ground that the order to show cause did not set forth any facts alleging the conduct charged.
It is doubtful that the appellant’s conduct could be characterized as a direct violation of the trial court’s order directing the witnesses to refrain from discussing their testimony, but we need not decide that issue, because the appellant’s procedural argument is dispositive. The rule governing indirect criminal contempt provides that an order to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt must state “the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840(a); State v. Wood, 700 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hill v. State, 643 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). If the order fails to do so, the requirements of the rule can still be met if a sworn affidavit containing the essential facts is attached to the order to show cause. See Wood, 700 So. 2d at 403; Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701, 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The order to show cause in the present case did not state the essential facts constituting the charge of indirect criminal contempt, nor was it accompanied by a sworn affidavit alleging the essential facts.
Reversed.
BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Hill v. State, 643 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- State v. Wood, 700 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)