Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

335 So. 2d 609

Garber v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1976-07-30

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1986

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“1. Direct criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. 2. The judgment of guilt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based. 3. Prior to the adjudication of guilt, the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him and inquire as to whether he has any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and sentenced therefor. 4. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. 5. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 482 So. 2d 587 - Fisher v. State

Relies on Speller v. State · Mathis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-07-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM,

¶1Appellant attorney was held in direct criminal contempt for conduct which occurred during the criminal trial of his client. We reverse.

¶2*610The record reveals that while appellant was vigorously defending his client the court overruled one of appellant’s objections and warned him not to contest the ruling any further or he would be held in contempt. Appellant made a further remark which the court construed as an argument with the ruling, and the court announced:

“THE COURT: That just cost you $50, Mr. Garber. You are hereby fined $50 for contempt of court. You may pay the Clerk. You may pay him at the end of the trial, or you will stay in the County Jail until you do pay him.”

¶3We have considerable doubt that the conduct of the attorney was contemptuous. However, it is unnecessary to reach that issue. Here the court failed to comply with the requirements of RCrP 3.830 which requires that prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him and inquire as to whether he has any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt. The rule also requires the defendant be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. We have held on several occasions that compliance with this rule is mandatory. Mathis v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 317 So.2d 778; Speller v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 305 So.2d 231.

¶4Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is REVERSED.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
/335/so2d/609 · .json · Public domain