JEFFREY WARD, APPELLANT, .
v.
THE 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.
Attorney Jeffrey Ward was convicted of direct criminal contempt for continuing to question prospective jurors on a forbidden topic despite the trial court's explicit directive to the contrary. The appellate court affirmed the contempt conviction but reversed the non-monetary portion of the sentence (writing assignment), finding that punishment other than the fine constituted an abuse of discretion.
The contempt conviction is affirmed because the record supports that Ward deliberately pursued questioning despite the court's explicit order, and intent to be contemptuous is not required—only intentional violation of the court's order. However, the non-monetary portion of the sentence is reversed as an abuse of discretion because such punishment is unnecessary if intended to instill contrition and improper if intended for any other purpose.
[1] An attorney may be found in direct contempt of court for pursuing a line of questioning previously ordered inadmissible by the court.
[2] A disclaimer of intent to be contemptuous is insufficient to deprive a court of the power to punish contempt.
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“A disclaimer of intent to be contemptuous is not sufficient to deprive the court of the power to punish contempt.”
Establishes that subjective intent is irrelevant to contempt liability; what matters is the intentional violation of the court's order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring voir dire examination in a criminal case, Ward, acting as defense counsel, insisted on questioning prospective jurors about a subject the trial…
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 Disobedience Of Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Jeffrey Ward, is an attorney. He appeals a judgment of the trial court finding him guilty of direct contempt of court “for pursuing a line of questioning ordered inadmissible by the court.” He was sentenced to pay a fine of $100.00 and to write “I will not disobey the direct order of a judge” one thousand times. On this appeal, it is urged that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of direct criminal contempt and that so much of the sentence as provides for punishment other than the fine is an abuse of discretion. We affirm the judgment but reverse that portion of the sentence which is appealed.
The record sustains the position of the State that in spite of the trial court’s directive to the contrary, Mr. Ward as an attorney for a defendant in a criminal case, insisted on questioning prospective jurors on a subject the court had previously held to be improper during voir dire examination. At the contempt hearing, Mr. Ward did not deny the factual occurrences but insisted that his motive was proper and that he was not intentionally contemptuous of the court.
A disclaimer of intent to be contemptuous is not sufficient to deprive the court of the power to punish contempt. See Cormack v. Coleman, 120 Fla. 1, 161 So. 844 (1935); and Wilson v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 353, 141 So. 182 (1932). The orderly conduct of a trial requires that a defendant and his attorney obey the rulings of the trial judge and appeal those rulings which are objectionable. A refusal to obey the rulings of the trial judge on the ground that the ruling is improper may result in the inability of the courts to administer justice.
The appellant further urges that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that he intended to transgress the court’s order. A determination of the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom is necessarily left to the trial judge. See State ex rel. Giblin v. Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496, 26 So. 2d 509 (1946). Such findings will not be set aside when reasonably supported by the facts appearing in the record. See the principle of law in Paul’s Drugs, Inc. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 175 So. 2d 203 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). The record before us amply supports the finding of the trial judge that Mr. Ward’s determination to proceed as he thought proper was undertaken despite the trial judge’s admonition. The judgment will be affirmed.
So much of the sentence as provides for punishment other than the fine is improper in this case. If contrived to instill contriteness, it is unnecessary; if for any other purpose, it is an abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. Saunders v. Boyer, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla.2d DCA 1964).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and the sentence is amended by striking the punishment other than the fine, which is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Thomas v. State, 419 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1982)…68). We find that further argument on this point would have been pointless and that defense counsel properly acceded to the trial court’s [*636] directions. See State ex rel. Garlovsky v. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ward v. State, 354 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). On the facts of this case the objection and request to make a motion, contrary to the district court’s finding, sufficed to preserve the point on appeal. We do not agree, however, with appellate counsel’s characterization of the…
-
Donnie Murrell v. State, 595 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…h DCA 1981); Krueger v. State, 351 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The trial court’s determinations should not be disregarded if they are supported by the law and some evidence in the record. In Re Weinstein, 518 So. 2d at 1374, citing, Ward v. State, 354 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The law of contempt has been stated many ways. The supreme court has described criminal contempt as: “... any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is cal…
-
In re Weinstein, 518 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…here counsel violated an order limiting the time for closing argument: Any time an officer of the court openly disregards a court order, no matter how . insignificant the order may seem, he obstructs the administration of justice. In Ward v. State, 354 So. 2d 438, 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the court stated: The orderly conduct of a trial requires that a defendant and his attorney obey the rulings of the trial judge and appeal those rulings which are objectionable. A refusal to obey the rulings of a trial judg…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1946)
- Wilson v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1932)
- Crown v. Coleman, 157 Fla. 463 (Fla. 1946)
- Chapman v. State, 157 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1946)
- Cormack v. Coleman, 120 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1935)
- Paul's Drugs, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 175 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Burger v. Liselotte Burger, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)