Polite v. State

• Decision Date: 27 September 2007
• Docket Number: No. SC06-1401.,SC06-1401.
• Citation: 973 So.2d 1107
• Parties: Gary Lamar POLITE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

973 So.2d 1107

Gary Lamar POLITE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. SC06-1401.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 27, 2007.

Carlos F. Gonzalez of Diaz, Reus, Rolff and Targ, LLP, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Richard L. Polin, Bureau Chief, and Lucretia A. Pitts, Assistant Attorneys General, Miami, FL, for Respondent.

PARIENTE, J.

We have for review Polite v. State, 933 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in A.F. v. State, 905 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).¹ The conflict issue is whether knowledge that a victim is a law enforcement officer is an essential element of the offense of resisting an officer with violence under section 843.01, Florida Statutes (2002). The Third District in Polite held that knowledge of an officer's status is not an essential element of the offense of resisting an officer with violence. The Fifth District in A.F. reached the opposite conclusion. Because we conclude that knowledge is an essential element of the crime of resisting an officer with violence, we quash the Third District's decision in Polite and approve the Fifth District's decision in A.F., to the extent it held that the State has the burden of proving the defendant's knowledge of the officer's status.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises from the arrest and conviction of Gary Polite, a 38-year-old homeless man, for resisting an officer with violence under section 843.01. On December 16, 2002, Miami-Dade County Police Officer Marcos Munoz was working undercover in the downtown Miami area, wearing a T-shirt underneath a plaid, button-down shirt. Officer Munoz was patrolling for potential thieves near jewelry stores in downtown Miami when he observed Polite shaking and poking a parking meter in an apparent effort to extract some coins. Tampering with a parking meter is a misdemeanor so Munoz moved in for an arrest.

According to Munoz, he pulled out his badge, grabbed his handcuffs and went to seize Polite's wrist while simultaneously identifying himself as a police officer. Polite pulled away and Munoz took hold of his shoulders and clothing so he would not get away. Munoz told him not to resist.

The defendant's upper clothing slipped off and the defendant was able to get out of Officer Munoz's grasp. The defendant attempted to hit the officer and fled the scene. Officer Munoz sent out a BOLO [(be on the lookout)] for the defendant.

Officer Santiago was also working patrol that evening, not undercover, and received Officer Munoz's BOLO call. Shortly thereafter, Officer Santiago observed the defendant riding his bike. The defendant got off the bike and started walking toward the police officer. Officer Santiago identified himself as an officer and directed the defendant to stop. The defendant submitted to officer Santiago's authority without a struggle.

Polite, 933 So.2d at 588 n. 2.

The State charged Polite with second-degree misdemeanor tampering with coin-operated vending machines and parking meters under section 877.08(3), Florida Statutes (2002), and third-degree felonious resisting an officer with violence under section 843.01. Only two witnesses testified at trial. Officer Munoz testified for the State concerning his observations and actions in attempting to arrest Polite. Officer Santiago testified for the defense concerning his actions in detaining Polite. Officer, Santiago was in full uniform when he received the BOLO from Officer Munoz.² Officer Santiago testified that he was clearly identifiable as an officer and Polite submitted with "no struggle." Additionally, Officer Santiago testified that although Polite did not approach him asking for help or mention that someone was chasing him, Polite told Officer Santiago that "he wasn't sure that [Officer Munoz] was a policeman."

At the close of all the evidence, Polite moved for a judgment of acquittal on both counts.³ As to the count of resisting an officer with violence, Polite argued that the State failed to meet its burden on an essential element of the crime—that Polite knew Munoz was an officer. The State argued that knowledge of the officer's status was not an essential element of the offense and therefore the State was required to prove only "that the defendant knowingly and willfully resisted or obstructed or opposed the officer by offering to do him violence." The trial court denied the motions.

During closing argument, the State told the jury that it had to prove only three elements for the crime of resisting an officer with violence: (1) defendant knowingly and willfully resisted, obstructed or opposed an officer by offering to do violence; (2) the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty; and (3) that the victim was an officer. The State emphasized that it need not prove that the defendant knew the victim was an officer, but explained that it was impossible for Polite not to have known. Polite responded by reasserting that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that Polite knew Munoz was an officer. Further, Polite argued that the evidence indicated that he was struggling to get away from an unknown attacker.

Defense counsel requested a special instruction that the State had to prove the defendant's knowledge of Officer Munoz's status, which was denied by the trial court. Defense counsel then filed a motion for a mistrial based on the trial court's refusal to read the special instruction, which was also denied. Over defense counsel's objection, the trial court read the standard jury instruction on the count for resisting an officer with violence.⁴ Although this instruction explains that the State must prove that the defendant knowingly and willfully resisted, it does not include a specific requirement as to the defendant's knowledge of the officer's status. The trial court also instructed the jury on the permissive lesser included offense of resisting an officer without violence under section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2002),⁵ and misdemeanor tampering with coin-operated vending machines or parking meters.

The jury convicted Polite of both misdemeanor tampering with a parking meter and felonious resisting an officer with violence. Polite filed a motion for a new trial. The State and Polite reasserted their arguments as to whether knowledge of Officer Munoz's status is an element of resisting an officer with violence. The trial court denied the motion.

On the misdemeanor tampering with a parking meter charge, Polite was sentenced to 227 days' imprisonment. On the felony charge, Polite was sentenced to seven and one half years as a prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender with a five-year mandatory minimum term of incarceration.

On appeal, Polite again argued that knowledge of the officer's status is an essential element of the offense of resisting an officer with violence and that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on this element. See Polite, 933 So.2d at 589. The Third District ultimately affirmed Polite's convictions and sentences, concluding that knowledge of an officer's status is not an element of the crime of resisting an officer with violence under section 843.01. See id.⁶ Although the Third District held that knowledge is not an essential element, the court noted that a defendant may assert his or her lack of knowledge as an affirmative defense to the crime. See Polite, 933 So.2d at 593. However, the court concluded that "the availability of such a defense ... does not render knowledge an element of the offense itself which must be established by the state." Id. In reaching this conclusion, the Third District certified conflict with the Fifth District's decision in A.F. See id. at 594.

ANALYSIS

I. Principles of Statutory Construction

Because the conflict issue involves the interpretation of a statute, this Court's review is de novo. See Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1269 (Fla.2006). As with all cases of statutory construction, it is the Court's purpose to effectuate legislative intent. See Bautista v. State, 863 So.2d 1180, 1185 (Fla.2003). This is because "legislative intent is the polestar that guides a court's statutory construction analysis." State v. J.M., 824 So.2d 105, 109 (Fla.2002). In construing a statutory provision, the Court first looks to the actual language used in the statute. See State v. Bodden, 877 So.2d 680, 685 (Fla.2004). As this Court has previously stated, "the Legislature generally has broad authority to determine any requirement for intent or knowledge in the definition of a crime. To determine whether the Legislature included a knowledge requirement in any given statute, we first look to the statute's plain language." State v. Giorgetti, 868 So.2d 512, 515 (Fla.2004) (citation omitted). If the plain meaning of the language is clear and unambiguous, then the Court need not delve into principles of statutory construction unless that meaning leads to a result that is either unreasonable or clearly contrary to legislative intent. See State v. Burris, 875 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla.2004). However, if the language is unclear or ambiguous, then the Court applies rules of statutory construction to discern legislative intent. See Bautista, 863 So.2d at 1185.

With respect to criminal statutes, "[o]ne of the most fundamental principles of Florida law is that penal statutes must be strictly construed according to their letter." Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla.1991). In fact, the Legislature has specifically codified this principle of lenity in section 775.021(1), Florida Statutes (2002). "This principle ultimately rests on the due process requirement that criminal statutes must say with some precision exactly what is prohibited." Perkins, 576 So.2d at 1312. Thus, when criminal statutes are subject to competing, albeit reasonable, interpretations, they must be ...