Butler v. State, 97-2079
| Decision Date | 12 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2079,97-2079 |
| Citation | 715 So.2d 339 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1880 Thomas BUTLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for aggravated stalking. Because the state failed to offer substantial, competent evidence as to every element of the offense, we reverse.
The crime of aggravated stalking is defined in section 784.048(3), Florida Statutes (1995), as follows:
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm, commits the offense of aggravated battery.
Here the aggravated stalking was alleged to have been in the form of harassment, and the victim was appellant's wife, Vonda. According to the statute, " 'Harasses' means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose." § 784.048(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). The statute also furnishes a definition of "course of conduct." " 'Course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." § 784.048(2). Constitutionally protected conduct is explicitly excepted. Id.
The alleged victim of appellant's aggravated harassment, characterized by the prosecutor as somewhat immature, lived with her parents. Her parents would not allow appellant to live there, and did not want him in the house. Nevertheless, when her parents were away the victim would, unbeknownst to them, allow appellant to live with her in the house.
There was vague testimony about a few unpleasant incidents--usually unspecified as to time, and not linked to other conduct on which the prosecution was relying. Some of these incidents were acknowledged to have occurred outside the temporal boundaries established by the information--July 6, 1996 to January 17, 1997. The best described occurrences took place on those two dates--July 6, 1996, and January 17, 1997.
On July 6, 1996, according to the testimony, Vonda's brother heard appellant and Vonda arguing in the living room of the parents' home. The brother had no reason to believe appellant had forced his way into the house. The brother thought appellant struck Vonda, but was not sure. The brother got appellant out of the house, but appellant remained on the porch and the brother thought appellant threatened to beat Vonda up. Appellant threw a chair through a window. On some other occasion, unspecified as to time, Vonda had a knot on her head which her brother thought showed appellant had hit her. On an occasion remembered by Vonda--but when it was she could not say, and it is by no means clear that this was during the period referred to in the information--appellant removed a room air conditioner from a window and Vonda hid in a closet until he left. She did not say why she hid in the closet. There was testimony appellant and Vonda argued frequently about money, other guys and respect.
On January 17, 1997, appellant went to the school which Vonda's child (but not appellant's) attended and at which she volunteered. He had to go to court, and tried to get her to go to court with him. There was testimony that he was insistent and abusive. The school authorities got him to leave, but he returned and physically attacked Vonda. He subsequently pleaded guilty to charges of battery, trespassing and disorderly conduct arising from this incident. There was testimony appellant sometimes came to school with Vonda, but this was the only occasion on which he became violent.
Vonda admitted that she sometimes hid appellant in her room or had him at the house when her parents were away. She did not think this ever occurred after the July incident. However, she gave appellant's father money to bond appellant out of jail in August after he was arrested for alleged burglary, which was based on his being in her parents' house without permission. She also went to court with appellant to give a statement to his former counsel, but could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. State
...State has the burden of proving the defendant's possession was knowing. See Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181 (Fla.1991); Butler v. State, 715 So.2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Since knowledge is an element of the offense, the State has the burden of proving the defendant's possession was knowin......
-
Scott v. State
...to demonstrate each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181 (Fla.1991); Butler v. State, 715 So.2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Since knowledge is an element of the offense, the State has the burden of proving the defendant's possession was knowing.......
-
Baker v. State
...Legal Essays in Tribute to Orrin Kip McMurray, at 469, 478 (1935). 2. Kearse v. State, 662 So.2d 677, 682 (Fla. 1995); Butler v. State, 715 So.2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). 3. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Art. 1, § 9, Fla. 4. 921.16. When sentences to be concurrent and when consecutive (1) A defe......
-
Johnstone v. State
...establish that any acts, or series of temporally related acts, could combine with others to constitute stalking. In Butler v. State , 715 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), this court held that, like here, there was no testimony establishing a "series of acts" where defendant and alleged ......