State v. Butter
546 So. 2d 1171, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1829, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4308, 1989 WL 85298
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 1, 1989·No. No. 89-754·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinions
Because intent is an essential element of the crime of contempt, Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 218 (Fla. 1953); Dudley v. State, 511 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Thomson v. State, 398 So.2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in reversing the judgment and sentence of contempt. Therefore, we deny the state’s petition for writ of common law certiorari.
Petition denied.
BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Butter, 546 So. 2d 1171, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1829, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4308, 1989 WL 85298 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).
546 So. 2d 1171 (State v. Butter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Riggs v. State
588 So. 2d 1019 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)