Turner v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--815,72--815 |
| Citation | 283 So.2d 157 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Glenn W. TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
James M. Russ, Orlando, and Daniel P. Sheehan, New York City, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, Glenn W. Turner, has timely appealed from an order of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County entered on October 4, 1972, adjudging him guilty of direct criminal contempt under the provisions of Rule 3.830 RCrP, 33 F.S.A. On that date he was tried, convicted and sentenced to one hundred and fifty (150) days in the county jail. The proceeding was conducted before the trial court as the trier of the law and facts. Appellant filed 13 assignments of error and has raised 19 points for consideration on appeal.
The chronology of events leading to the contempt charge being filed against Turner occurred on the morning of October 4, 1972, the date scheduled for the commencement of appellant's trial at the Pinellas County Courthouse. He was charged by the state attorney of Pinellas County with a violation of the applicable Florida criminal statutes in that he failed to properly register as a seller of securities--a felony offense--in connection with the operation of Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, a wholesale distributor of cosmetics and seller of regional distributorships for said cosmetics.
On October 3, the day prior to the commencement of the trial, the trial judge, in exercise of his sound judicial discretion, signed an order styled 'ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONDUCT OF TRIAL.' The order outlined in very succinct and clear language the guidelines under which the case was to be tried, e.g., specifying the conduct respecting the parties litigant, attorneys, court personnel, witnesses, members of the press, persons called for jury duty and members of the general public, and that the trial would begin at 9:30 A.M., the next morning.
On the next day, the Honorable B. J. Driver, Senior Circuit Judge, who was not the trial judge, observed as he was entering the courthouse on the way to his office that a large crowd of people had congregated at or near the courthouse bearing signs and placards protesting the trial and prosecution of appellant. The judge, being of the opinion that such actions and conduct were calculated to influence the trial, and constituted an interference with the orderly disposition of justice in the circuit court, entered an order in the case, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED That all sheriffs, constables, police officers and others authorized to execute process to cause said persons assembled in and around the Courthouse to disperse, and all persons are strictly enjoined and restrained from congregating in and about the county Courthouse of Clearwater, Florida and there display signs or by word or deed manifest support of or opposition to any party or parties involved in any trial being held or to be held in the county Courthouse, Clearwater, Florida.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That said persons may freely assemble in such places as they deem appropriate providing that there shall be no assembly of persons for the purpose and by the means aforesaid within 400 feet of the county Courthouse, Clearwater, Florida, under penalty of contempt.
Very shortly after the entry of Judge Driver's order, and before the trial was scheduled to start, the assistant state attorney sought and obtained a hearing before the Honorable William A. Patterson, circuit judge assigned to try the case, for the reason that he desired to bring certain matters to the attention of the court that were not related to the merits of the case. During this hearing, the state, through its assistant state attorney, presented its views that somebody was behind the gathering of people. The state requested that the court should determine who was responsible for this gathering, statements concerning the case that appeared in the newspapers, the planes flying around with signs espousing appellant's cause, and the fact that over 200 room reservations were made at various hotels. It being the state's contention that this type publicity Had to influence prospective jurors, the court, upon this representation, directed the state attorney's office to investigate these matters in an attempt to determine who was responsible for creating what was referred to as a 'circus type' atmosphere conducted outside the courtroom. During the hearing, the trial judge announced he would not proceed with the trial as scheduled.
After the said hearing ended, the trial judge entered an order to show cause, pertinent part thereof being:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant, Glenn W. Turner, appear Instanter before this Court and show cause why he should not be forthwith held in contempt for either causing, encouraging and/or condoning said demonstrations in and about the Pinellas County Courthouse, Clearwater, Florida, on the morning of October 4, 1972 . . .. (Emphasis supplied).
The pleadings further reflect that appellant, through his counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to the said charge. After the hearing commenced, the trial court, upon oral motion of appellant's counsel, granted a continuance of the hearing until 1:30 P.M. that afternoon. The hearing resumed, and, at the conclusion thereof, the trial court entered its judgment of contempt which provided in pertinent part:
. . . the Court finding that the failure of the said Glenn W. Turner to testify before this Court and to show cause or mitigation as to a finding of direct contempt or as to a sentence imposed by this Court, and the Court taking the failure of this defendant to testify and show cause as an admission of either causing, encouraging and/or condoning said disruptive demonstrations in and about the Pinellas County Courthouse, Clearwater, Florida, on October 4, 1972, . . ..
Upon advice of his counsel, appellant did not testify at the hearing aforesaid. The oral motion of counsel to admit appellant to bail pending appeal was denied by the trial court. After proper hearing, this court granted appellant's application to be released on bond pending appeal.
Later the same afternoon, the trial court, upon its own motion, entered an order supplemental to judgment of contempt, that provided in pertinent part:
In furtherance of this purpose this Court hereby stands open and available at any time for application of the defendant, Glenn W. Turner, to appear before this Court personally and through his own testimony show cause in mitigation of the sentence previously imposed by this Court under said judgment of contempt or to purge himself entirely of said contempt through admission of his contemptous acts toward the Court and the promise to not further cause, encourage and/or condone the disruptive demonstrations found to be his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crane, In re
...v. General Teamsters Local Union 326, 321 A.2d 123, 126 (Del.1974); Matter of Carter, 373 A.2d 907, 909 (D.C.1977); Turner v. State, 283 So.2d 157, 160 (Fla.App.1973); Hawaii Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Hawaii State Teachers Assn., 55 Hawaii 386, 520 P.2d 422, 426 (1974); Kay v. Kay,......
-
Dudley v. State, 86-269
...So.2d 384 (Fla.1981); Hamilton v. State, 363 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 101 (Fla.1979); Turner v. State, 283 So.2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); In re S.L.T., 180 So.2d 374, 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).5 Andrews v. Walton, 428 So.2d 663 (Fla.1983); Faircloth v. Fairclot......
-
Pole v. State
...the act falls should be resolved in favor of the contemnor.” Fisher v. State, 248 So.2d 479, 488 (Fla.1971) ; accord Turner v. State, 283 So.2d 157, 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Based on Plank, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to allow counsel for Mr. Pole because the conduct at......
-
Maas v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n
...beyond a reasonable doubt." Forbes v. State , 933 So. 2d 706, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citations omitted); see also Turner v. State , 283 So. 2d 157, 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). "Contempt is "[a]n act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct a court in the administration of justice......