M.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.C. v. State

614 So. 2d 4, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1622, 1993 WL 31575

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 1993

DocketNo. 92-779

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 614 So. 2d 4 (M.C. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M.C. v. State, 614 So. 2d 4, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1622, 1993 WL 31575 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

FERGUSON, Judge.

After leaving an afternoon football game, M.C. and friends came upon a railroad crossing arm device that had been tampered with so that it was stuck in the “down” position blocking traffic. No evidence was presented that M.C. caused the signal to malfunction.

The juvenile lifted the arm for each vehicle crossing the railroad tracks while his companions asked the motorists for a quarter each in compensation for the service. The State charged M.C. with violating section 860.08, Florida Statutes (1991), which provides:

Any person ... who knowingly or willfully interferes with ... any railroad signal system used to control railroad operations ... or other signal used in connection with railroad operations is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

We agree with M.C. that both the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “interfere”, and the principle of lenity favoring defendants in criminal cases, see Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987); § 775.-021(1), Fla.Stat. (1991), militate against the adjudication of delinquency on the facts of this case. “Interfere” means “[t]o come between so as to be a hindrance or obstacle; impede.” American Heritage Dictionary 669 (2d college ed. 1985). Where, as here, the device was already nonfunction-ing and obstructing the flow of traffic, the juvenile’s conduct in manually assisting the [5]*5device’s ordinary function was not an interference.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FERGUSON, Judge.

After leaving an afternoon football game, M.C. and friends came upon a railroad crossing arm device that had been tampered with so that it was stuck in the “down” position blocking traffic. No evidence was presented that M.C. caused the signal to malfunction.

The juvenile lifted the arm for each vehicle crossing the railroad tracks while his companions asked the motorists for a quarter each in compensation for the service. The State charged M.C. with violating section 860.08, Florida Statutes (1991), which provides:

Any person ... who knowingly or willfully interferes with ... any railroad signal system used to control railroad operations ... or other signal used in connection with railroad operations is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

We agree with M.C. that both the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “interfere”, and the principle of lenity favoring defendants in criminal cases, see Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987); § 775.-021(1), Fla.Stat. (1991), militate against the adjudication of delinquency on the facts of this case. “Interfere” means “[t]o come between so as to be a hindrance or obstacle; impede.” American Heritage Dictionary 669 (2d college ed. 1985). Where, as here, the device was already nonfunction-ing and obstructing the flow of traffic, the juvenile’s conduct in manually assisting the [5]*5device’s ordinary function was not an interference.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 4, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1622, 1993 WL 31575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mc-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack