Ned Carmer Thompson v. State of Florida

153 So. 3d 996, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 476, 2015 WL 179368
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 15, 2015
Docket1D13-5148
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 153 So. 3d 996 (Ned Carmer Thompson v. State of Florida) 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
Ned Carmer Thompson v. State of Florida, 153 So. 3d 996, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 476, 2015 WL 179368 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ROBERTS, J.

The Appellant, Ned Carmer Thompson, appeals his judgment and sentence .for the following counts: (1) felony battery — domestic battery by strangulation; (2) false imprisonment; (3) tampering with a witness, victim, or informant; (4) felony battery — repeat offender; (5) tampering with a witness, victim, or informant; and (6) perjury in an official proceeding. He raises five issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. The Appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible *997 error when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present any evidence required for a conviction for witness tampering under count three. The State concedes error, and we agree.

Under Florida law, tampering with a witness, victim, or informant occurs when:

(1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to:
[[Image here]]
(e) Hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense or a violation of a condition of probation, parole, or release pending a judicial proceeding....

§ 914.22(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (2013).

There is no evidence in the record establishing that the victim was attempting to contact law enforcement during the time of the incident. As such, there was insufficient evidence as to an essential element of the crime. See Longwell v. State, 123 So.3d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Accordingly, the Appellant’s conviction for witness tampering under count three must be REVERSED.

THOMAS and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

JAQUAN WILLIAMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Antoine E. McCloud v. State of Florida
260 So. 3d 911 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)
Frazier v. State
250 So. 3d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
KEVIN WILLIAMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
246 So. 3d 529 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
RICHARD TAFFE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
McCloud v. State
224 So. 3d 842 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
McClound v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
McCray v. State
171 So. 3d 831 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 So. 3d 996, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 476, 2015 WL 179368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ned-carmer-thompson-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.