DB v. State, 1D01-4909.
| Decision Date | 13 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D01-4909.,1D01-4909. |
| Citation | 825 So.2d 1042 |
| Parties | D.B., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Janelle C. Gillaspie, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
In this direct appeal in a juvenile case, the appellant, who was a public school student at the time of the alleged delinquent acts, challenges his adjudication of delinquency in one case and revocations of probation in two other cases. The adjudication and revocations were all predicated upon an alleged violation of section 790.163, Florida Statutes. Concluding that the appellant's threats to school officials that he would "blow up" or "burn down" his school at some time in the future did not amount to a violation of this statute, we reverse the order by which the appellant was adjudicated delinquent and the orders by which his probations were revoked.
Section 790.163 provides:
It is unlawful for any person to make a false report, with intent to deceive, mislead, or otherwise misinform any person, concerning the placing or planting of any bomb, dynamite, or other deadly explosive; and any person convicted thereof is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
As has been observed by the Second District, this statute was designed to criminalize "the type of hoax which has come to be known as a `bomb scare'." Grizzard v. State, 139 So.2d 161, 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). The statute is therefore violated when a person knowingly makes a false report that a bomb or other deadly explosive has been placed or planted. Consequently, threats to take some action in the future, such as occurred in the present case, are not violations of the statute.
Maryland's highest court recently dealt with a case in which a very similar statute had been applied to convict a defendant under circumstances virtually identical to those involved in the present case. Based on his threat to "blow up" a bank building, the appellant in Moosavi v. State, 355 Md. 651, 736 A.2d 285 (1999), was convicted under Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Article 27, § 151A, which provides as follows:
A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, knowing the statement to be false, he circulates or transmits to another or others, with intent that it be acted upon, a statement or rumor, written, printed, or by word of mouth, concerning the location or possible detonation of a bomb or other explosive.
In concluding that Moosavi had not violated the statute, the court reasoned as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L.C. v. State
...or planted. By contrast, a threat to plant a bomb in the distant future does not violate this statute." (citing D.B. v. State, 825 So. 2d 1042, 1042–44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) )). If L.C. had threatened to plant a bomb in the school, he would have run afoul of the law—but not the statute with w......
-
J.A.W. v. State
...doesn't criminalize the type of statement that he made. Section 790.163(1) criminalizes bomb scare-type hoaxes. D.B. v. State , 825 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). It prohibits "any person to make a false report, with intent to deceive, mislead, or otherwise misinform any person, con......
-
J.L. v. State
...has been placed or planted. By contrast, a threat to plant a bomb in the distant future does not violate this statute. D.B. v. State, 825 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In the instant case, the arresting law enforcement officer testified that she had been advised by dispatch that a "bomb t......