MICHELLE BENNETT WOODIE, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY CAMPBELL, SHERIFF OF LEON COUNTY, 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.
Appellant Woodie was found in direct criminal contempt for calling a judge a "stupid bitch" after a juvenile detention hearing, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the judge did not actually hear the comment in the courtroom, which is required for direct criminal contempt.
The court reversed Woodie's direct criminal contempt conviction because the judge did not hear the alleged contemptuous statement in the court's actual presence, and the conduct did not interrupt or hinder the orderly functions of the court, both of which are required elements for direct criminal contempt.
[1] Direct criminal contempt requires that the court personally see or hear the contemptuous conduct committed in its actual presence.
[2] A profane statement made outside the courtroom, even if heard by others and reported to the judge, does not constitute direct criminal contempt if the judge did not perso…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To constitute direct criminal contempt, however, the profane statement must be heard by the court and committed in the court's actual presence.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that direct criminal contempt requires the judge to personally hear or witness the conduct, not learn about it secondhand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 14, 2006, Woodie attended a juvenile detention hearing for her son where the trial court ordered him held in secure detention and provisionall…
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 Contemptuous Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order finding her in direct criminal contempt and sentencing her to one day in jail. Because we find that the trial court erred in finding her in direct criminal contempt, we reverse.
On July 14, 2006, Appellant attended her son’s, detention hearing in juvenile court. Based on the nature of the charges, the trial court ordered Appellant’s son to be held in secure detention pending his arraignment and trial. The trial court also provisionally appointed the Public Defender to represent Appellant’s son. Appellant became angry because she had hoped her son would be released into her custody and she wanted to hire a private attorney.
After Appellant left the courtroom and the trial court began another juvenile hearing, the Assistant State Attorney asked to approach the bench on Appellant’s son’s case. He informed the judge that Appellant called the judge a “bitch” as she walked past counsel table and out of the courtroom. The judge determined that it was too late to call Appellant back to the courtroom, and resumed the next case.
On August 9, 2006, a contempt hearing was held. The Assistant State Attorney testified that Appellant called the judge a “stupid bitch” and further testified that another mother told him she heard Appellant say this and was shocked by Appellant’s comment. The trial court stated that two other witnesses had testified or mentioned on the record that they also heard Appellant’s remark. After giving Appellant an opportunity to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and to present any mitigating circumstances, the trial court found her in direct criminal contempt.
Using profanity to refer to the trial court clearly constitutes contemptuous conduct. See Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). To constitute direct criminal contempt, however, the profane statement must be heard by the court and committed in-the court’s actual presence. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830 (2006) (“A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court.”); Barr v. State, 334 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), receded from on other grounds by Martinez v. State, 339 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (reversing the appellant’s conviction for direct criminal contempt because the judge did not hear the appellant call him a son-of-a-bitch; only the bailiff brought the appellant’s comment to the court’s attention); Payne v. State, 486 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (reversing a direct criminal contempt conviction when the judge heard a one-word expletive, not the alleged comment which two witnesses claimed to have heard).
Additionally, “[cjriminal contempt requires some willful act or omis sion calculated to hinder the orderly functions of the court.” Sewell v. State, 443 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Conduct which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the trial court in the administration of justice or that which is calculated to lessen the court’s authority or dignity constitutes criminal contempt. Thompson v. State, 618 So. 2d 781, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); see also L.C.W. v. State, 936 So. 2d 1214, 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (reversing a direct criminal contempt conviction because “the trial court did not hear the alleged contemptuous statement uttered by [appellant], the comment did not obstruct or hinder the administration of justice, and the trial court failed to recite the facts upon which the finding of contempt was made.”).
Here, the trial court did not hear Appellant’s comment or even Appellant mumbling something under her breath, which would alert the court that Appellant had said something inappropriate. In addition, Appellant’s action did not interrupt or hinder the orderly functions of the court, as the trial court had moved on to another hearing. Thus, we find this case distinguishable from both Saunders and Stavely v. State, 473 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and we reverse Appellant’s conviction.
REVERSED.
BENTON, PADOVANO and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…nce); Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118, 122-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (affirming adjudication for direct criminal contempt where defendant called the judge a “son-of-a bitch” as he was being escorted out of the courtroom); see also Woodie v. Campbell, 960 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In Martinez v. State, 339 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), we affirmed a judgment and sentence for direct criminal contempt where a defendant, while arguing with the judge, exclaimed: “That’s a bunch of bull shit.” However…
-
Davila v. State, 100 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…sing profanity to refer to the trial court clearly constitutes contemptuous conduct, to constitute direct criminal contempt, however, the profane statement must be heard by the court and committed in the court’s actual presence.” Woodie v. Campbell, 960 So. 2d 877, 878 (Fla. 1st DGA 2007). Further, “[T]he power to punish direct criminal contempt is one of the most unusual of the judicial powers: the judge ... becomes the prosecutor ... over the very defendant who is said to have just assailed the judicial dig…
-
Michaels v. Loftus, 139 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…r a resistance of or an interference with the lawful authority of the court or judge in his presence, or improper conduct so near to the court or judge acting judicially as to interrupt or hinder judicial proceedings.”); see also Woodie v. Campbell, 960 So. 2d 877, 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (stating conduct which hinders the trial court in the administration of justice or which is calculated to lessen the court’s authority or dignity constitutes criminal contempt); accord Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118, 124-…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martinez v. State, 339 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Penson v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Sewell v. State, 443 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Vasco Dagama Thompson v. State, 618 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Barr v. State, 334 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Payne v. State, 486 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Patterson v. State, 486 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Stavely v. State, 473 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- L.C.W. v. State, 936 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)