Genesis Electronics Group Inc (GEGI)

[Almost A Myth]

Criminal Contempt vs. Civil Contempt

Taken from: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/crimes/public-order-obstruction/contempt-of-court/

Under Florida law, contempt charges are distinguished, not only by whether they are direct or indirect, but also by whether they are criminal or civil in nature. Criminal contempt is “[a]n offense against the authority or the dignity of a court or of a judicial officer. . .” Ex parte Earman, 95 So. 755, 760 (Fla. 1923), or “any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity.” Crews, 173 So. at 279 (Fla. 1937).

The primary purpose criminal contempt is punishment, and potential criminal contemnors are entitled to the same constitutional due process protections afforded criminal defendants in more typical criminal proceedings. Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251, 253 (Fla. 1999); Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.H., 819 So. 2d 858, 861 & n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

By contrast, civil contempt is used to coerce an accused into complying with a court order, or to obtain compliance with it, rather than to punish the offending party for a failure to comply with the order. See The Florida Bar v. Taylor, 648 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1995); JPG Enterprises, Inc. v. Viterito, 841 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Rose v. Ford, 831 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “The primary purpose of a civil contempt proceeding is to compel future compliance with a court order. A civil contempt sanction is coercive in nature and is avoidable through obedience.” Gregory, 727 So. 2d at 253 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Lewis v. Nical of Palm Beach, Inc., 959 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

A person facing civil contempt sanctions is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Akridge v. Crow, 903 So. 2d 346, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Civil contempt sanctions are only appropriate if the court determines that the contemnor has the present ability to pay the support and has willfully refused to do so. Gregory, 727 So. 2d at 254. Regardless of the sanction, the court must provide the contemnor with the ability to purge the contempt. Id; R.H., 819 So. 2d at 862; Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The key safeguard in civil contempt proceedings is the court’s finding that the contemnor has the ability to purge the contempt. Akridge, 903 So. 2d at 351 (citing Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 364 (Fla. 2000)). Chetram v. Singh, 937 So. 2d 716, 718-719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Civil contempt sanctions do not entitle the contemnor to the “full panoply” of due process rights afforded a person facing criminal contempt charges. Bresch v. Henderson, 761 So. 2d 449, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, the person accused is entitled to a proceeding that meets the fundamental fairness requirements of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such fundamental fairness includes notice and an opportunity to be heard. Akridge v. Crow, 903 So. 2d 346, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).