Tarrant v. State
| Decision Date | 06 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1134,88-1134 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 127,537 So.2d 150 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 127 Robert TARRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
E.C. Watkins, Jr., Plant City, Nicholas M. Matassini, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert Tarrant, Pro Se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Tarrant appeals a judgment and sentence in which he was adjudicated guilty of two counts of direct criminal contempt resulting in sentences of fines, or, in the event the fines were not paid, a jail sentence. We reverse the judgment and sentence as to one count and affirm as to the other count.
Tarrant was the defense attorney for three defendants in a drug trafficking trial. Following final argument and the jury charge, the trial court, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, inquired of Tarrant why he should not be held in direct criminal contempt. The first ground asserted by the trial court was Tarrant's final argument to the jury concerning a certain exhibit which had been admitted into evidence. The second ground asserted by the trial court was Tarrant's personal attack upon the assistant state attorney during final argument.
As to the first ground, the exhibit was a jail visitation log which indicated that the assistant state attorney prosecuting the case, Susan Sexton, had signed in at the jail on October 25, 1986, was there for three hours, and that the purpose of the visit was to interview Sisto Monserrat, an inmate. Monserrat, who testified for the state on October 27, 1986, stated that he had spoken to Sexton only once two weeks earlier. Sexton asserted at a side bar conference with the judge and Tarrant that in spite of the jail log, she had not spoken with Monserrat on the date indicated by the log and, instead, had been at the jail to speak to another witness. Over the state's objection, the trial court admitted the jail log as a business record for the purpose of proving the substance of what the log purported to show on its face; that is, the assistant state attorney visited Monserrat on that day. The trial judge stated Sexton could testify, if she wished, to rebut the document. Sexton, however, did not testify, and she failed to call any witness to rebut the jail log. Tarrant utilized the jail log during closing argument to attempt to convince the jury that Sexton visited Monserrat shortly before Monserrat testified, thereby discrediting Monserrat's statement as to when he talked with Sexton.
Contempt is "any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct courts in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or dignity...." Clein v. State, 52 So.2d 117, 119 (Fla.1950). The first ground for contempt cannot stand because it was a fair comment upon the evidence. The rule in Florida is that Thomas v. State, 326 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla.1975) (emphasis deleted). Based upon the facts that the exhibit was admitted into evidence and Monserrat's testimony, Terrant's remarks during closing argument were addressed to the evidence and were not contemptuous.
The second ground for contempt concerned Tarrant's remarks in closing argument directed toward Sexton. Tarrant referred to the jail log and noted that Sexton signed in for a three hour visit with Monserrat during the trial. Thereafter, Tarrant accused Sexton of lying and cheating in concert with Monserrat in that Sexton knew Monserrat was lying and failed to disclose it. Tarrant further stated the judge was stopping the prosecutor from cheating when he sustained 400 defense objections. Tarrant continued by asking the jury if they would play miniature golf with the prosecutor. Tarrant commented that the jury would need an impartial observer to watch Sexton constantly to stop her from cheating by kicking the ball. Tarrant characterized the prosecutor's trial tactics as Tarrant asked the jury if they would buy a used car from the prosecutor, telling the jury they would need the Department of Transportation to inspect the car. Tarrant's concluding remarks against Sexton were as follows:
Do you recall when we started out, I referred to her as a lady throughout all the talk, and she then became a woman, and later on she became a female.
Well, I believe in calling a spade a spade,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ippolito v. State
...licensed and regulated by the supreme court, we would agree that her argument warranted some type of sanction. See Tarrant v. State, 537 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 544 So.2d 201 (Fla.1989); Mann v. State, 476 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); but see Holt v. Virginia, 381 U.S. 131......
-
Thomas v. State
...that has occurred outside the presence of the judge that violates a court order. (Citations omitted); see also Tarrant v. State, 537 So.2d 150, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)(finding it "elementary that conduct of an attorney which is improper and unethical lessens the dignity of the Similarly, in ......
- State v. Gibbons, 92-03408
- T.W. v. State, 95-00906
-
Oath of Civility
...proceedings and damaging to the court's authority" have been punished with a finding of contempt.1 For example, in Tarrant v. State, 537 So.2d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989), the attorney was held in contempt for attacking the personal integrity and credibility of opposing counsel at length......