Brown v. State
226 So. 3d 369
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brown was charged with possession offenses and scheduled for trial; defense sought to pass the case to discuss a plea.
- Prosecutor told the judge she believed Brown was too impaired to consult meaningfully with counsel; defense counsel had said he smelled alcohol in the vicinity.
- Judge put Brown under oath; Brown answered he was not under the influence; judge ordered him taken into custody and given breathalyzer tests at the jail.
- Jail breath tests showed .176 twice; judge, relying on counsel/prosecutor statements and the test results taken outside the courtroom, found Brown in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days.
- This court reversed, concluding the contempt finding was an abuse of discretion because the judge relied on out-of-court evidence (and not solely on conduct observed in the judge’s presence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt was direct criminal contempt | State: Brown lied under oath when he denied being under the influence and his intoxication disrupted proceedings, justifying direct contempt | Brown: Judge relied on hearsay and breath tests administered outside the judge’s presence; conduct was not observed in court | Reversed: finding of direct criminal contempt was error because judge relied on off-the-record statements and out-of-court test results |
| Whether judge could rely on counsel/prosecutor statements and jail breath tests to impose immediate incarceration | State: Such evidence showed intoxication and justified immediate sanctions | Brown: Reliance on those statements/tests transforms the proceeding into indirect contempt requiring further process | Held: Use of additional testimony/evidence outside judge's presence makes the proceeding indirect, so direct-contempt finding improper |
| Whether Brown’s courtroom behavior amounted to disruptive contempt | State: Intoxication impeded counsel and threatened courtroom order | Brown: Transcript shows no disruptive conduct observed by judge during proceedings | Held: Record did not show conduct in judge’s presence that vindicated court authority; contempt inappropriate |
| Whether procedural or constitutional issues require further analysis | State: Not argued here | Brown: Raised challenges to authority to detain and test; constitutional implications noted | Held: Court did not reach constitutional-detainment issues because reversal on contempt sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Plank v. State, 190 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 2016) (direct contempt requires acts committed in open court in judge’s presence; reliance on outside testimony converts to indirect contempt)
- Pole v. State, 198 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (discussing Plank and that the supreme court did not resolve certain certified conflict aspects)
- Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977) (criminal contempt vindicates court authority and punishes conduct offensive to public order)