FRED AARON, 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.
Appellant Aaron sought reversal of a contempt of court conviction and sentencing. The court rejected his argument that the trial judge erred by denying his jury trial demand, finding contempt sentences of four months or less constitute 'petty' contempt not requiring jury trial under federal precedent.
The court held that indirect criminal contempt is 'petty' when the sentence imposed is six months or less, and therefore no jury trial is required. The four-month sentence in this case was within the 'petty' contempt category, making the judge's refusal to grant a jury trial proper under established federal constitutional standards.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to a jury trial for a criminal contempt offense if the sentence imposed is six months or less.
[2] Criminal contempt is an offense sui generis.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Since Cheff received a sentence of six months' imprisonment [citation omitted], and since the nature of criminal contempt, an offense sui generis, does not, of itself, warrant treatment otherwise [citation omitted], Cheff's offense can be treated only as 'petty' in the eyes of the statute and our prior decisions. We conclude therefore that Cheff was properly convicted without a jury.”
Establishes the precedent that contempt sentences of six months or less are 'petty' offenses not requiring jury trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Aaron was found to have attempted to influence a member of the grand jury concerning a matter being investigated by that body. The hearing o…
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
Appellant seeks reversal of an order adjudging him to be in contempt of court and imposing a sentence of four months in the county jail and a fine of $250.00.
The court found, after considering conflicting testimony, that appellant attempted to influence a member of the grand jury concerning a matter being investigated by that body.
*516The hearing resulting in the contempt order was held without a jury although appellant made a written demand for a jury trial. Appellant’s first ground for reversal asserts error in failure to grant his motion for a jury trial. Although Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1.840(a) (4), 33 F.S.A., relating to indirect criminal contempt, provides that all issues of law and fact shall be heard and determined by the judge in such actions, appellant contends the rule is invalid under the state and federal constitutional provisions for jury trial. That argument was rejected by the court in Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 380, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 1526, 16 L.Ed.2d 629, 634 (1966), wherein it stated:
“. . . Since Cheff received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment [citation omitted], and since the nature of criminal contempt, an offense sui ge-neris, does not, of itself, warrant treatment otherwise [citation omitted], Cheff’s offense can be treated only as ‘petty’ in the eyes of the statute and our prior decisions. We conclude therefore that Cheff was properly convicted without a jury. . . .”
The decision in Cheff, supra, was cited with approval by the court in a more recent case, Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968), wherein the court set aside a two-year sentence imposed for indirect criminal contempt because there was no jury trial, but the court made it clear that it was adhering to the rule that if a contempt is ‘petty’ as evidenced by the imposition of a sentence of six months or less, no jury trial is required.
Additional points raised by appellant have been considered by the court, but our deliberation has convinced us that they are without substantial merit. See Barton v. State, 193 So.2d 618, 626 (Fla.App.1967); Sadler v. State, 222 So.2d 797 (Fla.App.1969); Peel v. State, 154 So.2d 910 (Fla.App.1963); and State v. Sebastian, 171 So.2d 893 (Fla.1965).
No reversible error having been demonstrated, the judgment herein is affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., JOHNSON, J., and MILLS, E. R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1973)…BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 261 So. 2d 515, which affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County. Our jurisdiction is based on conflict between the decision sought to be reviewed and State ex rel. Brocato v. Purdy.1 The following are the…
-
Salem v. State, 305 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…ent of contempt is reversed. .In this summary proceeding, the trial judge sentenced appellant to one year imprisonment. During oral argument, counsel for the state conceded that a sentence exceeding six months was impermissible. See Aaron v. State, 261 So. 2d 515 (1 Fla.App.1972); and Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1973). . Honesty is equally becoming of the government as it is of its citizenry. . An appeal from this judgment of conviction by Salem is pending in this Court. . Rogge, The First and the…
Authorities Cited
- Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1968)
- Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1966)
- State v. Sebastian, 171 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1965)
- Barton v. State, 193 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Sadler v. State, 222 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)