WILLIAM A. GEARY, 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.
William Geary was convicted of criminal contempt for discussing a case with a stranger while serving as a juror, in violation of the trial court's admonition. The appellate court affirmed his conviction and six-month jail sentence, finding the citation sufficient, the contempt proven, and the sentence not unreasonably harsh.
The citation was sufficiently specific to provide notice of the contemptuous acts charged. Geary's comments constituted criminal contempt regardless of whether made in a joking manner, as this was an affirmative defense requiring factual weighing not supported by the evidence. The sentence was not unreasonably harsh given the importance of judicial integrity.
“the citation charged actions which, if proved, would constitute a criminal contempt, and the appellant clearly had notice of the nature of the contemptuous act with which he was charged”
Establishes that the citation was sufficiently specific to satisfy due process requirements for notice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeary was a juror in a case when the court was in recess. He discussed the case with a stranger and made comments suggesting he might do the parties '…
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 Integrity Of The Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Another aspect of this case was before us in State of Florida, ex rel. Geary v. Kelly, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 262. This appeal is by William A. Geary who was found guilty of a charge of criminal contempt for discussing a cause in which he was a juror during the time that the court was in recess and against the admonition of the court. A citation was issued and served upon Geary directing him to appear for hearing before the court on the charge of * * violating the Court’s orders not to discuss the case while you were sworn as a juror. * * *”
On the day of the hearing Geary filed a motion to quash the citation upon the ground that the citation was vague and indefinite, and filed his answer to the citation which generally denied the charge. The motion was denied and the hearing proceeded. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court adjudged the appellant guilty and imposed a sentence of six months in the county jail with credit for the days already served.
By this appeal, Geary presents three basic questions: (1) Was the citation legally sufficient? (2) Was it a violation of the trial court’s admonition to state to a stranger to the case that he (the juror) might do the parties “some good” for a nominal fee? and (3) Was the imprisonment unreasonably harsh?
*892Upon the sufficiency of the citation we need only comment that the citation charged actions which, if proved, would constitute a criminal contempt, and the appellant clearly had notice of the nature of the contemptuous act with which he was charged. Without deciding that further particulars would have been appropriate, we may point out that the appellant did not move for a bill of .particulars, as he could have done. Thalheim v. State, 38 Fla. 169, 20 So. 938; Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. 46, 34 So. 287; Winslow v. State, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 339.
The appellant urges that he could not really have been in contempt when he made the comments charged because he made them in a joking manner. The possibility that appellant was joking does not seem to have so impressed the person addressed (he informed the trial judge of the conversation), nor did the trier of fact recognize that possibility. Such a possibility is a matter of affirmative defense which requires the weighing of the circumstances surrounding the conversation. Unless we should find that the evidence so strongly presented the possibility as to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt, the appellant could not be benefited. We do not so find.
Under appellant’s third point he suggests that he was tried for disobedience of the trial judg'e’s order but convicted of trying to sell his vote, and this accounts for what he considers the unusual severity of his punishment. It has been held that the power to punish for contempt should be cautiously and sparingly exercised. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Tampa Southern R. Co., 101 Fla. 468, 134 So. 529; Demetree v. State ex rel. Marsh, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 498. Yet it is natural and right that the court should be jealous of the integrity of the judicial process since there can be no surer way to harm our system of government than to have sown the seeds of suspicion and distrust for the ordinary processes of the law. While it is not contended that the sentence is illegal, appellant’s third point is in the nature of a petition for modification of the sentence and might more appropriately be directed to the trial judge. We will not disturb the sentence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 196 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1967)…courts of Florida, while apparently refraining from making motions and answers indispensable parts of the procedure, seem to regard them with favor in appropriate situations. (Re motion to quash and motion for bill of particulars—see Geary v. State, 139 So. 2d 891 (Fla.App. 1962); re the answer—see State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, 80 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1955).) Elsewhere in these rules is a recommended 'proposal that a motion to dismiss replace the present motion to quash; .hence, the motion to dismiss is recommende…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 606 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1992)…da, while apparently refraining from making motions and answers indispensable parts of the procedure, seem to regard them with favor in appropriate situations. Regarding motions to quash and [*338] motion for bill of particulars, see Geary v. State, 139 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); regarding the answer, see State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, 80 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1955). Elsewhere in these rules is a recommended proposal that a motion to dismiss replace the present motion to quash; hence, the motion to dismiss is re…
-
Sandstrom v. State, 309 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…holds that the fewer “local” rules the better, and that the power to punish for contempt should be cautiously and sparingly used. Demetree v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 498; State v. Clemmons, Fla. 1963, 150 So. 2d 231; Geary v. State, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 891. Judges should refrain from imposing their personal preferences upon others when it is not necessary to the proper administration of justice. There is no place in the courtroom for the personal likes and dislikes of judges such as those demonstrated…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Tampa S. R.R. Co., 101 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1931)
- Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1903)
- Demetree v. State of Fla. ex rel. John D. Marsh, 89 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1956)
- Thalheim v. State, 38 Fla. 169 (Fla. 1896)
- Winslow v. State, 45 So.2d 339 (Fla. 1949)
- State of Fla. ex rel. William A. Geary v. Kelly, 137 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)