M.J. v. State, 202 So. 3d 112

M.J., a juvenile, was found in direct criminal contempt and sentenced to three days secure detention for allegedly using his cell phone to photograph or film courtroom proceedings in violation of court policy.
Bailiffs testified M.J. raised his phone to chin level with the camera facing the judge and lowered it only after being directed to do so; he was then ordered to leave the courtroom and complied.
No witness testified that M.J.’s phone was on or that it actually recorded or photographed; the phone was not confiscated or examined for evidence.
M.J. admitted raising the phone but denied taking pictures/video, asserting he sought the judge’s attention to show a video about his brother’s case.
The court had a routine announcement banning cell phone use before hearings, but M.J. was outside the courtroom listening with headphones when that announcement was made.
The juvenile appellate court reversed, holding the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that M.J. filmed or photographed the proceedings and directed the contempt judgment vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved direct criminal contempt for photographing/filming in court	M.J. raised phone toward judge; this amounted to willful violation of courtroom no-phone policy and interference with court authority	M.J. admitted only raising the phone, denied taking pictures/video, and phone was not shown to have been used; no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of filming	Reversed — insufficient proof that M.J. filmed or photographed; cannot sustain direct criminal contempt
Whether contempt allegation/notice and procedure met rule requirements	Court relied on alleged phone use observed by bailiffs as basis for contempt	M.J. argued he was not informed of any additional allegations and due-process rules require specific notice and opportunity to respond	Held that only the conduct expressly accused could support contempt; other allegations in briefing could not be used because M.J. was not informed of them

McRoy v. State, 31 So.3d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (direct contempt may be summarily punished when committed in court’s presence)
Smith v. State, 954 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (contempt order must clearly notify person of command; contempt punishes affronts to court authority)
Berman v. State, 751 So.2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (direct contempt requires willful substantial interference with court business)
Davila v. State, 100 So.3d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (provocation for contempt must not be slight, doubtful, or ambiguously interpretable)
Barnes v. State, 588 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (contempt based on violating an order requires that the order clearly and definitely command the person)
State v. Diaz de la Portilla, 177 So.3d 965 (Fla. 2015) (criminal contempt rules must be strictly followed to protect due process)
T.J.L. v. State, 139 So.3d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (insufficient evidence cannot support contempt for alleged courtroom filming)