Criminal contempt is a charge rarely seen in Broward County, Florida according to those who work in furtherance of our Florida Criminal Justice System.
According to the Sun-Sentential, this past Thursday, however, an inmate appearing before Judge John “Jay” Hurley was handed a one year contempt sentence for repeatedly cursing the bench.
Judge Hurley is a well-respected judge in Broward and strictly adheres to the law according to local Criminal Defense Lawyers.
He is a good judge, bottom line.
Order in our Florida Courts is paramount. This appears to be a marked lack of respect to our Judiciary. Apparently, this defendant cursed at the judge over 20 times and dropped the F-Bomb repeatedly.
The accused was before Judge Hurley for an alleged violation of a no-contact order issued on a pending Domestic Violence case.
To make matters worse for himself, the accused invited the judge to perform a sex act on him. Hurley replied, “The court is inclined at this time to hold you in contempt of court.”
The general opinion of those present found that Judge Hurley exercised great patience before taking action under contempt statutes. It is unknown if any mental health issues may exist that may mitigate the actions taken by the accused in this case.
Contempt has been defined by the Florida Supreme Court as “Any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity.” The test is not the physical propinquity of the act to the court, but its tendency to directly affect the administration of justice.” Ex parte Crews, 173 So. 275, 279 (1937) (citations omitted).
Contempt of court is generally classified as being either direct or indirect. Demetree v. State, 89 So. 2d 498, 501 (Fla. 1956). A direct contempt is an insult committed in the presence of the court or of a judge when acting as such, or a resistance of or an interference with the lawful authority of the court or judge in his presence, or improper conduct so near to the court or judge acting judicially as to interrupt or hinder judicial proceedings. Ex parte Earman, 95 So. 755, 760 (Fla. 1923 ); Kress v. State, 790 So. 2d 1207, 1208-1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
In the absence of any evidence of wilful or deliberate intent to disrupt, it should be rare that the mere use of a word or phrase which may have negative or distasteful connotations will be sufficient to constitute direct criminal contempt. Murrell v. State, 595 So. 2d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
The rules and procedures applicable to a charge of direct criminal contempt are described n Rule 3.830, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 3.830 provides that:
[a] 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. The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based. 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. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record. Sentence shall be pronounced in open court.
Indirect contempt, by contrast, occurs “not in the presence of a court or of a judge acting judicially, but at a distance under circumstances that reasonably tend to degrade the court or the judge as a judicial officer, or to obstruct, interrupt, prevent, or embarrass the administration of justice by the court or judge.” Forbes v. State, 933 So. 2d 706, 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Thus, where the offending conduct takes place outside the presence of the court, any contempt at issue would be indirect. Indirect criminal contempt furthermore requires a judgment of guilt that recites the facts constituting the contempt. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.840(f); See also Hagerman v. Hagerman, 751 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing order that failed to recite factual basis for contempt); See also Price v. Hannahs, 954 So. 2d 97, 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Indirect criminal contempt charges are governed by Rule 3.840, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rule provides that indirect contempt charges must be governed and prosecuted as follows:
In a criminal contempt proceeding the contemnor is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Demetree v. State, 89 So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla. 1956).