Battle v. State (639 So. 2d 1081, 1994)

PER CURIAM.

This police officer’s failure to respond to a subpoena for deposition appears to be unintentional. His explanation, given under oath, shows he lacked any intent to violate the terms of the subpoena. His contempt conviction is reversed. Scrimshaw v. State, 592 So.2d 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

REVERSED.

HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.

COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.

COBB, Judge,

concurring specially.

The findings of fact by the trial judge in this case show-that her contempt adjudication against Officer Battle was based, at least in part, on conduct of other persons, for which Battle could not be blamed. Accordingly, I concur in the majority result.