McCloud v. State
Decision Date | 20 December 2018 |
Docket Number | No. SC17-2011,SC17-2011 |
Citation | 260 So.3d 911 |
Parties | Antoine E. MCCLOUD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Howard L. "Rex" Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida, for Petitioner
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, C. Suzanne Beschard, Bureau Chief, and Bilal Ahmed Faruqui, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Respondent
This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in McCloud v. State , 224 So.3d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in McCray v. State , 171 So.3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). McCloud , 224 So.3d at 847. We have jurisdiction.
See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This conflict concerns the proper interpretation of Florida's witness tampering statute: section 914.22, Florida Statutes (2014). For the reasons that follow, we approve the decision below and disapprove of the First District's precedent discussed in McCray .
This case presents a pure question of statutory interpretation; however, to the extent that the facts are relevant, the Second District sufficiently recited them:
McCloud , 224 So.3d at 843-44.
McCloud appealed the denial of motion for judgment of acquittal to the Second District, relying upon the First District's precedent articulated in McCray . Id. The Second District rejected McCray , certified conflict with the decision, and affirmed McCloud's conviction for witness tampering. Id. at 847.1
This review follows.
The issue central to the certified conflict is whether section 914.22(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires the State to demonstrate that a witness attempted to contact law enforcement to prove its case in chief on witness tampering. Based on the plain language of the statute, we conclude that the statute does not designate an attempt to contact law enforcement as an element of the crime; accordingly, the Second District's interpretation below was correct.
This Court undertakes de novo review for questions of statutory interpretation. E.g. , Polite v. State , 973 So.2d 1107, 1111 (Fla. 2007). The purpose of this endeavor is to effectuate the Legislature's intent 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) ; e.g. , In re Ginsberg's Estate , 50 So.2d 539, 542 (Fla. 1951) (); Getzen v. Sumter Cty. , 89 Fla. 45, 103 So. 104, 107 (1925) (); State v. Patterson , 67 Fla. 499, 65 So. 659, 660 (1914) (); State v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. , 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969, 984 (1908) (); Curry v. Lehman , 55 Fla. 847, 47 So. 18, 20 (1908) (); 48A Fla. Jur. 2d, Statutes § 116 (2014) ; 2A Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 45:5 (7th ed. 2014) (); see also Heydon's Case , (1584) 76 Eng. Rep. 637 (Exch.) ( ). In order to "discern legislative intent, this Court looks first to the plain and obvious meaning of the statute's text." Smith v. State , 204 So.3d 18, 21 (Fla. 2016) (quoting W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See , 79 So.2d 1, 9 (Fla. 2012) ). If the statute is "clear and unambiguous," then this Court does not look beyond the plain language or employ the rules of construction to determine legislative intent—it simply applies the law.
Gaulden v. State , 195 So.3d 1123, 1125 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Borden v. E.-Eur. Ins. Co. , 921 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla. 2006) ).2
In pertinent part, the witness tampering statute is clear and unambiguous:
§ 914.22(1)(e), Fla. Stat. To prove witness tampering under that plain language, therefore, the State must demonstrate that a defendant knowingly acted, threatened, or attempted either, with the specific intent to "[h]inder, delay, or prevent" a victim's communication to law enforcement with regard to a criminal offense. Id. ; see Taffe v. State , 232 So.3d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; McCloud , 224 So.3d at 846 ; Gill v. State , 622 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ; see also McAlpin v. Crim. Justice Standards & Training Comm'n , 155 So.3d 416, 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; cf. State v. Gray , 435 So.2d 816, 820 (Fla. 1983) ( ).3 The conflict here relates to whether the statute further requires the State to establish that the witness attempted to contact law enforcement during the commission of the underlying criminal offense. McCloud , 224 So.3d at 845. The Second District held below that the plain language of the statute does not include a witness's attempt to contact law enforcement as an element of the crime, id. at 845-46 ; whereas the First District, on nearly identical facts, came to the opposite conclusion in McCray , 171 So.3d at 832. Based on the plain language of section 914.22(1)(e), Florida Statutes —which is clear and unambiguous—we conclude that the First District misread the statute and improperly added an element to the offense in contravention of the plain language.
Nothing in the plain language of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. State
...Supreme Court explained in State v. Gray, 435 So. 2d 816, 820 (Fla. 1983), superceded by statute on other grounds, McCloud v. State, 260 So. 3d 911, 915 (Fla. 2018), "[t]he elements of a crime are derived from the statutory definition." See also Fla. House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 S......
-
Kidwell Grp., LLC v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla.
...Inc. , 238 So. 3d 887, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo, as well. McCloud v. State , 260 So. 3d 911, 914 (Fla. 2018). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court is limited to the four corners of the complaint and its incorporated attachm......
-
Forrester v. Sch. Bd. of Sumter Cnty.
...requested relief. As a result, the issue presented is one of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. See McCloud v. State , 260 So. 3d 911, 914 (Fla. 2018)."In interpreting the statute, we follow the ‘supremacy-of-text principle’—namely, the principle that ‘[t]he words of a governi......
-
Richards v. State
...costs. We disagree. We find the statute's language to be clear and unambiguous, and we apply it is as written. See McCloud v. State , 260 So. 3d 911, 914 (Fla. 2018). The first sentence of the statute articulates the conditions that the State must satisfy before a defendant becomes liable f......
-
Crimes
...even though neither the wife or daughter attempted to call law enforcement prior to the phones being taken from them. McCloud v. State, 260 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 2018) The court errs in adjudicating a child guilty of retaliating against a witness under §914.23(1) when the threat was made before ......