State v. Murray, 76-2485
| Citation | 349 So.2d 707 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2485,76-2485 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kent A. MURRAY, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
David H. Bludworth, State's Atty. for Palm Beach County, and William B. King, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Michael A. Nugent and David Roth, Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Murray is charged under Section 918.14(3)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1975), with having caused a witness to be placed in fear. The court dismissed the information because it did not allege the defendant knew that a trial, proceeding or investigation was pending as mentioned in Section 918.14(1), Florida Statutes (1975). 1
We agree the information is defective and should be dismissed but not because it fails to allege the matters mentioned in paragraph (1) of the Statute. That paragraph does not apply to paragraphs 3(a)1, 2 and 3 because the Statute is meant to proscribe the tampering with or retaliation against a witness; and a trial, proceeding or investigation may be completed when retaliation is sought or assault is made. In fact, retaliation probably does not occur until after testimony is given and there is something against which to retaliate.
This Statute is different from other assault or battery or threat Statutes in that it requires the alleged victim to be or have been a witness. But many people are witnesses to many things so it must be alleged that the defendant knew the alleged victim was a witness. Some connection between the actions of the defendant and the fact the alleged victim was a witness must also be alleged in order to allege a violation of this Statute which is in effect an enhanced penalty Statute.
The Order of the trial court dismissing the information is affirmed without prejudice to the State to refile a proper information.
1 "918.14 Tampering with witnesses.
(1) It is unlawful for any person, knowing that a criminal trial, an official proceeding, or an investigation by a duly constituted prosecuting authority, a law enforcement agency, a grand jury or legislative committee, or the Judicial Qualifications Commission of this state is pending, or knowing that such is about to be instituted, to endeavor or attempt to induce or otherwise cause a witness to:
(a) Testify or inform falsely; or
(b) Withhold any testimony, information, document, or thing.
(2) If any person violates the provisions of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. State
...Florida Statutes (1979), but a similar list is not contained in subsection 918.14(3)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1979). State v. Murray, 349 So.2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Murray holds that under this statute "it must be alleged that the defendant knew the alleged victim was a witness. Some conn......
-
People v. Robinson
...but the intent of and the purpose and design of the accused that brings him within the purview of the Statute--See State v. Murray 1977, Fla.App.Div. 4, 349 So.2d 707; State v. Dauzat 1973 La., 284 So.2d 592; P. v. McAllister, 99 Cal.App. 37, 277 P. 1082; State v. Howe 1976 N.D., 247 N.W.2d......