Demetree v. State ex rel. Marsh

• Decision Date: 12 September 1956
• Citation: 89 So.2d 498
• Parties: James DEMETREE and Georgia Bell Demetree, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. John D. MARSH, County Solicitor of Dade County, Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 498

89 So.2d 498

James DEMETREE and Georgia Bell Demetree, Appellants, v.STATE of Florida ex rel. John D. MARSH, County Solicitor of Dade County, Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.

Sept. 12, 1956.

Ernest E. Roberts and Caldwell, Parker, Foster, Wigginton & Miller, Miami, for appellants.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Jos. P. Manners, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

THORNAL, Justice.

AppellantJames Demetree, who was a defendant below, seeks reversal of an order of the Chancellor adjudicating him to be in contempt of court and sentencing him to six months in jail for violation of an injunction order in a proceeding brought by appellee to restrain the conducting of a nuisance.

The questions to be disposed of on appeal are whether the contempt proceeding was for a civil or criminal contempt and the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the appellant.

On May 25, 1954, appelleeJohn D. Marsh, as County Solicitor of Dade County, and in the name of the State of Florida, filed in the Circuit Court of Dade County his amended complaint to enjoin an alleged nuisance being conducted by appellants at the Demetree Hotel in Miami.Allegedly, the nuisance consisted of unlawfully operating, maintaining and conducting upon the premises of the hotel 'a house and place of prostitution, assignation and lewdness'.

After hearing, the Chancellor entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the appellants'and any and all persons claiming by, through and under them' from using and operating the property involved 'as a house and place of lewdness, assignation and prostitution'.

On May 23, 1956, the County Solicitor filed a petition for a rule nisi against appellantJames Demetree alleging that he had 'unlawfully, knowingly and contemptuously violated' the injunction order by 'operating, maintaining and conducting the said property as a house and place of lewdness, assignation and prostitution'.The rule issued and in response to the rule Demetree denied the allegations of the petition.After hearing extensive testimony, the Chancellor concluded that the injunction order had been violated by Demetree, that he had 'failed and refused to obey the order' of the court granting the injunction, and upon finding him guilty of contempt of the court, the Chancellor thereby ordered that Demetree be punished 'by being confined in the Dade County Jail for a period of six months'.

Reversal of this order adjudicating appellantJames Demetree to be in contempt of court and sentencing him to a jail sentence is sought by this appeal.

Georgia Bell Demetree, who was a party-defendant in the original injunction proceeding, is not involved in this appeal.We, therefore, refer only to appellant Demetree as having reference to James Demetree.

Appellant contends that the contempt proceeding below was for an alleged criminal contempt, that the rules of Criminal Law apply with reference to the quantum of proof necessary to convict and that the evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the contemnor beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appellee contends, that the proceeding was civil rather than criminal in nature but that even if it were criminal contempt the proof was adequate to sustain guilt when measured by the standards of the Criminal Law.

One writer has suggested that 'Contempt of court is the Proteus of the legal world' in that it assumes an almost infinite variety and diversity of forms.Be this as it may, it is nonetheless important in particular cases to undertake to identify the nature of the proceeding because of the drastic nature of punishment oftentimes administered and because of the potentials for impinging upon the fundamental rights of a party by the exercise of the power.We ourselves have suggested that the power to punish for contempt should be cautiously and sparingly exercised.Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Tampa Southern R. Co., 101 Fla. 468, 134 So. 529.Despite this admonition of caution, which historically our courts have observed, the power to punish for violation of a valid subsisting order of a court of competent jurisdiction necessarily inheres in our judicial system.This is so for the simple reason that without the power our judicial system would become a mere mockery for a party to a cause could make of himself a judge of the validity of orders which had been issued and by his own acts of disobedience set them aside, thereby ultimately producing the complete impotency of the judicial process.There can therefore be no doubt that the courts are clothed with power to punish contempt for violation of their orders and they have this authority without the necessity of referring the issues to another tribunal or to a jury in the same tribunal.

Contempt of court is generally classified as being either civil or criminal in nature and direct or indirect, the latter being dependent upon whether the contemptuous conduct is committed in the presence or out of the presence of the court.In the case before us the issue is squarely presented as to whether the contempt alleged was civil or criminal.The distinction is important because of a difference in quantum of proof necessary to convict as well as the nature of the punishment that may be administered upon a determination of guilt.

In its broadest aspects a civil contempt order is sought by a party to the cause and...