DuFresne v. State

• Citation: 826 So.2d 272
• Decision Date: 05 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. SC01-246.,SC01-246.
• Parties: Francis DUFRESNE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

826 So.2d 272

Francis DUFRESNE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. SC01-246.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 5, 2002.

Michael Dubiner and Mark Wilensky of Dubiner & Wilensky, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Celia Terenzio, Assistant Attorney General, Bureau Chief, West Palm Beach, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.

ANSTEAD, C.J.

We have for review State v. DuFresne, 782 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), wherein the district court certified the following question to be of great public importance:

IS THE TERM "MENTAL INJURY" IN SECTION 827.03(1)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES (1996) UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS VAGUE?

Id. at 894. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we answer the certified question in the negative.

PROCEDURE TO DATE

On August 25, 1997, the State filed an information charging petitioner, a public school teacher who works with autistic children, with five counts of child abuse involving different children, contrary to section 827.03(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Section 827.03 provides:

(1) "Child abuse" means:

(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;

(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or

(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.

A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

§ 827.03(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). Prior to trial, the State filed an amended information, wherein it changed the dates of the alleged incidents of abuse in order to bring the case within the effective date of the 1996 revisions to section 827.03(1). Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the amended information, arguing in part that section 827.03(1) was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Following a hearing on petitioner's motion to dismiss, the trial court entered an order finding the statute to be unconstitutional as being both overbroad and vague.

On appeal, in an initial opinion, the Fourth District held section 827.03(1)(b) was unconstitutionally vague because the term "mental injury" was not defined therein. The day after the district court filed its initial opinion, however, this Court issued its opinion in State v. Fuchs, 769 So.2d 1006 (Fla.2000), holding that section 827.04(1)(a), which failed to define the terms "delinquent," "dependent child," or "child in need of services," was not unconstitutionally vague. As a result, the district court withdrew its initial opinion and requested the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing Fuchs.

Thereafter, based upon its interpretation of Fuchs, the district court issued the opinion currently before this Court, and reversed the trial court's order finding section 827.03(1)(b) unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. See State v. DuFresne, 782 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The district court first concluded that section 827.03(1)(b) is not overbroad since it can be narrowly construed as not applicable to speech. See id. at 891. Turning to the vagueness challenge, the district court, relying on Fuchs, held that the term "mental injury," as used in section 827.03(1)(b), is not unconstitutionally vague since the term is defined in section 39.01(44), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). See id. at 894. The Fourth District, however, certified the above question as one of great public importance.¹ Id. at 894.

ANALYSIS

Petitioner maintains that section 827.03(1) is unconstitutionally vague since its language does not adequately inform persons of common intelligence of the proscribed conduct. Specifically, petitioner argues that section 827.03(1) is unconstitutionally vague because the term "mental injury" is not defined within the statute.

It is well established that where reasonably possible and consistent with constitutional rights, a statute will be interpreted by the courts in a manner that resolves all doubt in favor of its validity. See State v. Fuchs, 769 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla.2000); State v. Mitro, 700 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla.1997); State v. Wershow, 343 So.2d 605, 607 (Fla.1977). This Court has noted, however, that in a vagueness challenge, any doubt as to a statute's validity should be resolved in favor of the citizen and against the State. See State v. Brake, 796 So.2d 522, 527 (Fla.2001); Wershow, 343 So.2d at 608. This policy emanates from the concern that citizens should be put on reasonable notice of conduct proscribed by the State when the proscription utilizes criminal sanctions for its breach. Accordingly, in order to withstand a vagueness challenge, a statute must provide persons of common intelligence and understanding adequate notice of the proscribed conduct. See Fuchs, 769 So.2d at 1008; Mitro, 700 So.2d at 645. Additionally, the statute must define the offense in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. See State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 698 So.2d 533, 537 (Fla.1997); Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla.1994).

However, "[t]he legislature's failure to define a statutory term does not in and of itself render a penal provision unconstitutionally vague. In the absence of a statutory definition, resort may be had to case law or related statutory provisions which define the term ...." State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla.1980); see also Fuchs, 769 So.2d at 1009; Mitro, 700 So.2d at 645. Indeed, in cases where the exact meaning of a term was not defined in a statute itself, we have ascertained its meaning by reference to other statutory provisions, as well as case law or the plain and ordinary meaning of a word of common usage. See Brake, 796 So.2d at 528. Further, "[w]hile the legislature may direct that statutes be read in pari materia, the absence of such a directive does not bar construing two statutes in that manner." Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981, 988 (Fla. 1981), cited with approval in Holmes County School Bd. v. Duffell, 651 So.2d 1176, 1179 (Fla.1995).

Initially, we reject petitioner's argument that this case is controlled by Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla.1992). The issue before this Court in Hermanson was whether the spiritual treatment proviso contained within section 415.503(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1985), was a statutory defense to a criminal prosecution under section 827.04(1). Hermanson did not involve the issue of whether a statute was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to define a term. Rather, Hermanson concerned the ambiguity created by the authorization of a spiritual treatment accommodation provision in one statute and the declaration under another statute that the same conduct was criminal. Thus, Hermanson is distinguishable from the instant case.

Fuchs

In State v. Fuchs, 769 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 2000), we applied the principles of statutory construction discussed above in reviewing a decision declaring section 827.04(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), unconstitutionally vague. The defendant had been charged with violating section 827.04(1)(a), which makes it a misdemeanor to "[c]ommit any act which causes, tends to cause, encourages, or contributes to a child becoming a delinquent or dependent child or a child in need of services." § 827.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). The defendant asserted that section 827.04(1)(a) was unconstitutionally vague because the statute did not define the terms "delinquent child," "dependent child," and "child in need of services." The county court agreed, but certified the following question to the Fifth District Court of Appeal as one of great public importance:

Whether Florida Statute 827.04(1)(a) is unconstitutionally vague in that the prohibited conduct, omissions and or standard of conduct of an accused is not defined and the statute fails to define the terms "delinquent," "dependent child," or "child in need of services."

Fuchs, 769 So.2d at 1008. The Fifth District answered the certified question in the affirmative, thereby finding section 827.04(1)(a) unconstitutional.

On review, this Court reversed, and reiterated that the Legislature's failure to define a term does not in and of itself render a penal statute unconstitutionally vague and that statutes may be read together without there being a specific reference or directive within the language of either statute. See id. at 1009-10. Prior to 1996, section 827.04, Florida Statutes (1995), provided in pertinent part:

(3) Any person who commits any act which thereby causes or tends to cause or encourage any person under the age of 18 years to become a delinquent or dependent child or a child in need of services, as defined under the laws of Florida ... is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree....

(Emphasis added.) We concluded that the deletion of the phrase "as defined under the laws of Florida" from section 827.04 did not render the statute unconstitutionally vague because the terms at issue were defined in chapter 39 (Proceedings Relating to Children); chapter 984 (Children and Families in Need of Services); and chapter 985 (Delinquency; Interstate Compact on Juveniles) of the Florida Statutes. See id. at 1010.

In our analysis, we noted that because these chapters have similar underlying purposes (i.e., the general protection of children and corresponding parental, custodial, and guardianship responsibilities), the provisions should be read in proper relationship to one another. See id. Lastly, we recognized that "[t]here is only one place within Florida's legislative scheme where a child may be adjudicated delinquent (chapter 985), or...