JAMES R. ANDERSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD E. GERSTEIN, AS STATE ATTORNEY, EX REL., OF STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF DADE, 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 State Attorney petitioned for criminal contempt charges against James Andersen for allegedly soliciting advertisements in his newspaper from persons by offering to excuse them from jury duty or indicating he had already removed them from jury lists. The trial court found him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to ten days in jail. The appellate court affirmed, holding that contempt does not require physical proximity to the court but only conduct that tends to obstruct or hinder the administration of justice.
The court affirmed the conviction for criminal contempt, holding that contempt does not require physical proximity to the court but is established when an act is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in administering justice or to lessen its authority or dignity. The test is the tendency of the act to directly affect the administration of justice, not its physical location.
“any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity, is a contempt * * * The test is not the physical propinquity of the act to the court, but its tendency to directly affect the administration of justice.”
Establishes the legal standard for criminal contempt, focusing on the tendency of conduct to interfere with justice administration rather than physical proximity to the courthouse
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndersen, apparently connected with jury duty administration, contacted William C. Baker by telephone and requested he place a $15 advertisement in An…
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 Petition For Rule To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
The State Attorney brought a petition for rule to show cause in the Circuit Court against the appellant in which it was alleged :
«2. * * * [T]he defendant, JAMES R. ANDERSEN, contacted William C. Baker by telephone and requested the said William C. Baker to place a $15.00 advertisement in the said Florida Public Employee. As an inducement for the placing of the said advertisement, the defendant represented to the said William C. Baker that if he should be called for jury duty, the defendant, JAMES R. ANDERSEN, could have him excused.
“3. That subsequent to the entry of the aforesaid Final Judgment, and on or about July 11, 1963, the defendant, JAMES R. ANDERSEN, contacted Frank J. Gust by telephone and requested him to place a $15.00 advertisement in the aforementioned newspaper Florida Public Employee. When the said Frank J. Gust refused to place the advertisement, the defendant, JAMES R. ANDERSEN, told him he had removed the said Frank J. Gust’s name from jury duty and that the said Frank J. Gust should show his appreciation by placing an advertisement in the defendant’s newspaper.
“That on July 12, 1963, pursuant to the telephone conversation described in the preceeding paragraph, an agent of the defendant, JAMES R. ANDERSEN, appeared at the place of business of the said Frank J. Gust, and took a check from the said Frank J. Gust in the amount of $10.00 for the placing of an advertisement in the Florida Public Employee.
“Your Petitioner, because of the aforementioned facts stated in his Petition, respectfully suggests that the said JAMES R. ANDERSEN did act in a manner which did obstruct, impede, restrict, impair, interfere with, delay, hinder, lessen its authority, dignity, or embarrass the cause of justice and which conduct tended to bring this Honorable Court into disrepute.”
After trial the court entered the following final judgment and sentence:
“The State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida having filed a Petition herein, charging the defendant, JAMES R. ANDERSEN, with criminal contempt of this Court on July 11, 1963, and the Court having entered a Rule to Show Cause, directing said defendant to appear before the Court and show cause why he should not be punished for such contempt of Court, and said defendant having appeared before the Court, and the Court having heard testimony offered in behalf of the State, and after hearing argument of respective counsel and after due and careful consideration, the Court finds that the defendant, JAMES R. ANDERSEN, is guilty of criminal contempt of this Court, as charged in the Petition filed in this cause; and the said JAMES R. ANDERSEN is hereby sentenced to serve a term of ten (10) days in the Dade County JaiL”
*893The appellant contends that because the acts charged and proved were not committed in the proximity of the court, they do not constitute contempt. This position is untenable in view of the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Ex Parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381, 173 So. 275, wherein it was held:
“It may be said broadly, but certainly, that any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity, is a contempt * * * The test is not the physical propinquity of the act to the court, but its tendency to directly affect the administration of justice. * * * ”
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…h” are affirmed. The judgments appealed are reversed in part and affirmed in part. JOHNSON, J., concurs. McCORD, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. . Salem v. State of Florida, 305 So. 2d 23 (3 Fla.App.1974). . Andersen v. Gerstein, 164 So. 2d 891 (3 Fla.App.1964). . The appellant contended that all three judgments of contempt were invalid for these reasons. As we have already noted the judgment of contempt for refusing to testify was invalid for constitutional reasons and thus, we do not co…
-
Kleinfeld v. State, 270 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ely demonstrate a course of conduct by appellant “calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity,” Anderson v. Gerstein, etc., Fla.App. 3, 1964, 164 So. 2d 891, 893; the statements, rulings and orders of the judge having been “properly made in the course of the administration of the cause by the trial court,” Vernell v. State ex rel. Gerstein, State Attorney, Fla.App. 3, 1968, 212 So. 2d 11, 13. And so:…
-
Mims v. State, 259 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…Florida as any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in the administration of justice or which lessens the court’s authority or dignity, regardless of the physical propinquity of the act to the court. Andersen v. Gerstein, 164 So. 2d 891 (3 Fla.App. 1964). “The purpose of Rule 1.850, Cr.PR, is to protect the constitutional rights of persons convicted of crime. The individual and society, therefore, have an important interest in the maintenance and proper use of the rule. The abuse…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1937)