ARCHIE LEE HAMILTON, 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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support an adjudication of indirect criminal contempt.
Hamilton was found in indirect criminal contempt for secreting a court file before his trial. The file was taken by Hamilton and never recovered, base…
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 Burden Of Proof In Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Archie Lee Hamilton, from a judgment of guilty on the charge of indirect criminal contempt of court, and a sentence thereon. We reverse.
The record reflects that following a non-jury trial, the court entered an order adjudging Hamilton “. . . in indirect criminal contempt of court by thwarting the orderly administration of justice in secreting the court file.” This adjudication was based on the findings of fact which the court recited in the order: that the court had advised Hamilton to be ready for trial (on pending criminal charges) and that no further continuances would be granted: that on Friday before his trial scheduled for Monday morning, Hamilton obtained the court file in his case from a deputy clerk who directed him to return it to her; that the file was not returned to the clerk and that a thorough search of the clerk’s office failed to disclose the file. It appears that the file has never been found.
From our review of the proceedings before the trial court, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support an adjudication of indirect criminal contempt of court. Generally, in contempt proceedings the contemnor is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Turner v. State, 283 So. 2d 157, 160 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1973) and cases cited therein. In this case, the state presented only inconclusive circumstantial evidence which creates mere suspicion, but fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hamilton committed the act charged.
In view of the foregoing opinion, the other points raised by Hamilton on this appeal need not be discussed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dudley v. State, 511 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)….1977); Demetree v. State, 89 So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla.1956); Adirim v. City of Miami, 348 So. 2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Martin v. State, 397 So. 2d 1012, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for review denied, 411 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1981); Hamilton v. State, 363 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA [*1057] 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979); Turner v. State, 283 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); In re S.L.T., 180 So. 2d 374, 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). . Andrews v. Walton, 428 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1983); Faircloth v. Fairclo…
-
Shields v. Shields, 636 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ee with the appellant. In an indirect criminal contempt proceeding, the movant must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant willfully violated the court order. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985). See also Hamilton v. State, 363 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, State v. Hamilton, 374 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1979). In the instant case, the testimony presented during the evi-dentiary hearing addressed only the relationship between Mr. Karr and the appellee and whether or not the per…
-
Graham v. State, 419 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…hat appellant was clearly and explicitly directed by the trial court to personally appear at a certain time and place. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Further, it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Hamilton v. State, 363 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)) that appellant failed to provide an explanation for his absence or that he was readily available and able to attend or to contact the court with an explanation. Accordingly we reverse the judgment of criminal contempt and remand…
Authorities Cited
- Turner v. State, 283 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)