Ex Parte Biggers
| Decision Date | 15 March 1923 |
| Parties | Ex parte BIGGERS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original petition by L. Carland Biggers for habeas corpus.
Petitioner discharged.
Syllabus by the Court
In force within state except where not inconsistent with United States Constitution or acts of Legislature. The general common law of England is in force in this state, except where it is 'inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.'
Common-law procedure in contempt where court cannot have knowledge stated. At common law in contempt proceedings, for matters 'of which the court cannot have knowledge, unless by the confession of the party or the testimony of others, if the judges upon affidavit see sufficient ground to suspect that a contempt has been committed, they either make a rule on the suspected party to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him, or, in very flagrant instances of contempt, an attachment issues in the first instance.'
At common law if party clears himself on oath discharged, but if perjured may be prosecuted; at common law if party confesses contempt court corrects by fine or imprisonment or both. At common law in contempt proceedings,
At common law, where contempt not perpetrated in presence of court or judge, rule to show cause must be predicated upon affidavits alleging personal knowledge. In contempt proceedings at common law, the general rule is that, if the matters complained of were not perpetrated in the presence of the court or judge or so near the court or judge as to impede or embarrass judicial procedure, the rule issued to the accused to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, should be predicated upon affidavits of those who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged as the contempt.
Where admitted charges clearly constitute contempt, punishment follows; discharge follows where admitted charge ambiguous and intent to offend denied under oath; if denial under oath of matters charged false, prosecution for perjury remedy. In contempt proceedings, if the charges duly made are admitted to be true, and they clearly constitute contempt, whether so intended or not, appropriate punishment follows. If the matters charged and admitted to be true are ambiguous or do not clearly constitute contempt, and an intent to offend is duly denied under oath, a discharge from custody follows. If the matters charged are denied under oath and the denial is false, prosecution for perjury is the remedy.
Unless acts or words of criticism or condemnation affecting judicial officer not perpetrated in presence offend or hinder orderly discharge of judicial functions not contemputuous. The right to make fair comments and criticisms of official conduct does not warrant or excuse offensive; statements reflecting upon officials as such; but, unless acts or words of criticism or condemnation affecting a judicial officer not perpetrated in or near his presence, when acting judicially are of such a nature and occur under such circumstances as to offend the court as such or to hinder or embarrass the orderly discharge of judicial functions, such acts, words, or other conduct do not in general warrant imprisonment as for contempt of court. See Ex parte Earman, 95 So. 755, decided this day.
Matters not having reasonable tendency to degrade or embarrass judge not criminal contempt, when intent to offend denied on oath. A circuit judge is expected to be a man of ordinary firmness of character; and if the matter complained of as constituting contempt, when fairly interpreted, does not have a reasonable tendency to degrade or to embarrass or hinder such a judge in performing his own duty, or to affect a mind of reasonable fortitude, it is not a criminal contempt for which imprisonment may be lawfully adjudicated, particularly when an intent to offend is denied on oath.
Express denials of intent to offend, supported by pertinent circumstances, considered in determining real nature of matter alleged contemptuous. Generally it is the nature and reasonable tendencies of the matter complained of as a contempt that controls; and, if the matter is of doubtful tendency or might or might not be considered ambiguous as to its general or specific purpose, the circumstances under which the thing was done or in which its consequences are to appear may be considered in determining the reasonable tendency of the matter to affect judicial authority or dignity; and express denials of a desire or an intent to offend, when duly supported or corroborated by pertinent circumstances, may be considered in determining the real nature and reasonable tendency of the matter complained of as being calculated to affect the functions of the court.
Statements in public speech held not criminal contempt, where publication denied on oath. Where a person in a public speech in another county and circuit makes statements that may be construed as a reflection upon a circuit judge, but disclaims on oath any intention to reflect on the court or judge, and it does not appear that the statements made had a real tendency to embarrass the judge in performing his judicial functions, and the party denies on oath any responsibility for or participation in the publication of the statements in a newspaper that circulated in the home county of the judge, an imprisonment as for contempt should not be adjudged.
J. B. Hodges, of Lake City, Frank A. Pettibone, of West Palm Beach, and Sydney H. Diamond, of Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Blackwell, Donnell & McCracken, H. J. Quincey, C. E. Chillingworth, Edgar C. Thompson, George W. Coleman, Bert Winters, D. L. Southard, Ray Griffin, Roebuck & Roebuck, John Ziegler, James O. Watson, L. R. Baker, Sidney J. Catts, Jr., and C. D. Abbot, all of West Palm Beach, and C. L. McCoy, of Lake Worth, for respondent.
In a petition filed in this court, L. Garland Biggers alleges:
That he is illegally and unlawfully detained and deprived of his liberty by the sheriff of Palm Beach county, Fla. That a rule and an amended rule were issued by the judge of the Fifteenth judicial circuit against the petitioner here, charging him with contempt of court, in which amended rule it is alleged that there was----
'on the 1st day of February, A. D. 1923, and still is, pending before the circuit court of the Fifteenth judicial circuit of Florida, in and for Palm Beach county and being considered and under advisement by the Honorable E. C. Davis, as judge of said circuit court, a certain case wherein one Edwin Antelo sought and is seeking by writ of habeas corpus to get his release from custody, having been taken in custody by the chief of police of the city of West Palm Beach, Fla., because of a judgment of conviction in the municipal court of the city of West Palm Beach, Fla.; and
'Whereas many other cases were on the 1st day of February, A. D. 1923, and still are, pending before said circuit court and are under consideration by the said E. C. Davis as judge thereof, which have been brought to said circuit court by writ of error from the municipal court of the city of West Palm Beach, Fla.; and
'Whereas, you, the said L. Garland Biggers, did, on the 1st day of February, A. D. 1923, make a speech before the Florida League of Municipalities at Miami, Fla., in which you did say in the presence and hearing of many and divers persons and cause to be published the words spoken by you in the Miami Daily Metropolis, the issue of Friday, February 2, 1923, the said Miami Daily Metropolis being a daily newspaper of general circulation throughout the state of Florida and having a large circulation in West Palm Beach, Fla., and throughout Palm Beach county, Fla., the words imputed to you and declared to have been spoken by you which are contained in the following article or publication in said newspaper, to wit:
"Palm Beach Circuit Judge Weak as Water Says Mayor Biggers."OPINION
'And * * *
'Whereas that you may be advised more particularly of the words spoken and published by you, to which exception is taken, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure., In re
...must be under oath. Phillips v. State, 147 So.2d 163 (Fla.App.1962); see also Croft v. Culbreath, 150 Fla. 60, 6 So.2d 638; Ex parte Biggers, 85 Fla. 322, 95 So. 763. (2) Motions; Answer.--The appellate courts of Florida, while apparently refraining from making motions and answers indispens......
-
State ex rel. Schwartz v. Lantz, 82-739
...upon a statement that he made at the hearing that "I believe that this court has the power to do so and so rule." In Ex parte Biggers, 85 Fla. 322, 95 So. 763, 769 (1923), the court If the charges duly made are admitted to be true, and they clearly constitute contempt whether so intended or......
-
State ex rel. Giblin v. Sullivan
...impeded or embarrassed the administration of justice, although it must appear that their tendency was of that character. Ex parte Biggers, 85 Fla. 322, 95 So. 763; C.J.S., Contempt, pp. 42, 43, § 30. The filing of papers, however, which are gross and indelicate in language, the use of scand......
-
Michaels v. Loftus
...proceedings or hinder administration of justice where trial court moved on to next case without hesitation). See also Ex parte Earman, 95 So. at 763 (A letter allegedly accusing court of susceptibility to corruption did not hinder administration of justice where judge “did, in fact dispose ......
-
Frustrated by a deadbeat parent? Try invoking the dog law.
...Aiello v. State, 338 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976). (11) Wood v. State, 700 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1997). (12) Ex parte Biggers, 95 So. 763 (Fla. 1923); State v. Golden, 571 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (13) Gidden, 613 So. 2d 457. (14) Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274. (15) FLA. R. CRIM. P. 3......