Fore v. State
201 So. 3d 839
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Frank Fore, an accident-reconstruction expert, signed an affidavit supporting a defendant’s motion for postconviction relief in a DUI manslaughter case.
- Fore’s affidavit contained incorrect opinions based partly on his misreading of a Toyota report; during preparation he learned from the State’s expert that some opinions were wrong.
- Fore notified defense counsel of his changed views but did not amend the filed affidavit or inform the court or the State; the State learned of the change only at Fore’s deposition.
- The State moved for sanctions; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court found the affidavit "materially false" and prepared with "reckless indifference to its truth," and treated the remedy as civil contempt to compensate the State for costs (expert, transcripts).
- The court imposed a $6,667.70 civil contempt fine against Fore (defense counsel paid the fine and is not an appellant).
- The district court reversed, holding civil contempt was inappropriate because contempt requires a violation of a court order and intent to disobey; the court declined to extend inherent-authority sanctions to a nonparty expert in a criminal case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether civil contempt was authorized absent a violated court order | State: contempt permissible to compensate for false affidavit and expenses | Fore: no court order was violated; no basis for civil contempt | Reversed — civil contempt requires violation of a court order |
| Whether intent to violate an order is required for civil contempt | State: sanction appropriate for reckless or bad-faith conduct | Fore: contempt requires intentional disobedience, not mere recklessness | Reversed — intent to violate a court order is necessary |
| Whether trial court could instead rely on inherent authority to sanction a nonparty expert in a criminal case | State: tipsy coachman/inherent authority could support sanctions | Fore: extending inherent authority would chill speech and access to courts | Rejected — court declines to expand inherent authority to sanction nonparty expert in criminal case |
| Whether criminal-procedure rules provide sanction authority here | State: argued available remedies | Fore: rules cited do not cover this conduct | Court: existing criminal-procedure sanction rules cited do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Parisi v. Broward Cty., 769 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2000) (describing courts' contempt power to enforce orders)
- South Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 88 So.2d 891 (Fla. 1956) (recognizing compensatory fines in civil contempt where decree violated)
- Roberts v. Bonati, 133 So.3d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (civil contempt requires intent to violate a court order)
- Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1998) (recognition of trial courts' inherent authority to award sanctions in civil cases for bad faith)
- Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2002) (extension of inherent-authority sanctions to parties' attorneys in civil litigation)
- Emanuel v. State, 601 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (concern that aggressive inherent-authority sanctions in criminal cases can chill constitutional rights)
- Nical of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Lewis, 981 So.2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (discussing compensatory relief via civil contempt)