¶1After the appellant made a threatening comment to a witness during the lunch break from a trial, the court commenced a contempt proceeding, took testimony, and held appellant in contempt of court without complying with any of the provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, regarding indirect criminal contempt. Failure to comply with the procedural requirements of this rule is error. See Baker v. Green, 732 So.2d 6, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We therefore reverse the order of contempt.
855 So. 2d 263
Willis v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided October 1, 2003
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-10-01
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 2003
1 state decisions
Relies on 732 So. 2d 6 - Baker v. Green
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2003-10-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →