McDaniel v. State
Decision Date | 13 August 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 67-1049,67-1049 |
Citation | 213 So.2d 505 |
Parties | Sharon McDANIEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Harold Ungerleider, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant appeals from an order finding her guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing her to ninety (90) days in the Dade County jail.
The contempt order was entered against her during a bitterly contested divorce case in which she was a prospective witness who had been subpoenaed to testify at the final hearing. Her testimony would have been relevant and material to the issues therein.
The record reflects competent, substantial evidence to sustain the finding of a direct contempt committed in the immediate presence of the court. See State ex rel. Luban v. Coleman, 138 Fla. 555, 189 So. 713 (1939); Thiede v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 490; In re S.L.T., Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 374; and United States v. Appel, 211 F. 495 (S.D.N.Y.1913).
Appellant did not make any claim in the trial court that she was being compelled to testify against herself and no reversible error has been shown in this regard. Hargis v. Fla. Real Estate Commission, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 419.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chavez-Rey v. Chavez-Rey
...because the case before us involves a direct contempt, a contemptuous act committed in the presence of the court. Cf. McDaniel v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 505 (opinion filed August 13, 1968). The procedural requirements for prosecuting a direct criminal contempt are set forth in Rule ......