Christofer Korn v. Donna Korn, 180 So. 3d 1122

In a Florida divorce case the trial court entered an order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt, alleging Christofer Korn threatened to "kill and mutilate" his wife but without specifying date, time, place, or method.
The order incorporated the wife's contempt motion, which generally alleged repeated texts, emails, a handwritten letter, and attempted telephonic contacts but lacked the specific offending communications.
The order to show cause was served on November 3, 2014 and set a contempt hearing for November 6, 2014 (about 2½ days' notice).
Defense counsel requested a continuance on November 5 to take depositions and because defense counsel had only recently met with Korn and a criminal attorney was just retained; the trial court denied the continuance.
At the hearing Korn invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; the trial court drew a negative inference from his silence, adjudicated him guilty of indirect criminal contempt, and sentenced him to 45 days in jail.
The Fourth District reversed, holding (1) the notice was not a "reasonable time" under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.840(a) given the imprecision of the order, and (2) drawing an adverse inference from Korn’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment violated his privilege against self-incrimination.

Issue	Donna's Argument	Christofer's Argument	Held
Was ~2.5 days between service and hearing "reasonable time" under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.840(a)?	Notice was sufficient; prompt hearing appropriate.	Two-plus days was insufficient to prepare a criminal defense and to obtain necessary discovery.	Reversed — 2.5 days was not reasonable; more time required.
Did the order to show cause adequately state the "essential facts" of the contempt?	Incorporation of the motion and general allegations were adequate.	Order was vague, lacking specific dates/times/content, requiring more preparation/discovery.	Reversed — order was imprecise and required more specificity and time.
Was discovery/preparation time required before an indirect criminal contempt hearing?	Not necessary given summary nature of contempt proceeding.	Required under Rule 3.840 and due process to allow meaningful defense.	Reversed — defendant entitled to time/discovery to prepare.
Could the trial judge draw a negative inference from Korn invoking the Fifth Amendment?	Invoking silence justified drawing an adverse inference.	Invocation of Fifth Amendment protects against adverse inference; comment or inference is unconstitutional.	Reversed — drawing a negative inference violated privilege against self-incrimination.

Russ v. State, 622 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (two days' notice insufficient for contempt defense)
Goral v. State, 553 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (two working days notice insufficient)
Gratz v. State, 84 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (short notice to counsel was insufficient for final contempt hearing)
Givner v. State, 559 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (notice served on 26th for 29th insufficient)
Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (two days' notice insufficient for civil contempt hearing)
Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (criminal contemnor entitled to same constitutional protections as criminal defendants)
Demetree v. State ex rel. Marsh, 89 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1956) (criminal contempt presumes innocence; contemnor cannot be compelled to testify)
Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1975) (Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination)