State v. Chapman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Chapman

562 So. 2d 355, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3024, 1990 WL 57818

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 1990

DocketNo. 89-00911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 562 So. 2d 355 (State v. Chapman) 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

State v. Chapman, 562 So. 2d 355, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3024, 1990 WL 57818 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals the dismissal of an information against the appellee, Richard Paul Chapman. Chapman was charged with witness tampering in violation of section 914.22, Florida Statutes (1987), by knowingly using or attempting to use intimidation or physical force with intent to influence testimony in an official proceeding. § 914.22(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987). The trial court found subsections 914.-22(1)(a) and (3) unconstitutional. We affirm.

We agree that subsection 914.-22(1)(a) is unconstitutionally vague because [356]*356it is not clear whether it proscribes conduct that influences another to testify truthfully, falsely or both. See State v. Cohen, 545 So.2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We also agree that subsection 914.22(3), unconstitutionally relieves the state of its burden to prove unlawful activity and intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The subsection provides for an affirmative defense to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s conduct was lawful and that his intent was to influence another to testify truthfully. Id.

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals the dismissal of an information against the appellee, Richard Paul Chapman. Chapman was charged with witness tampering in violation of section 914.22, Florida Statutes (1987), by knowingly using or attempting to use intimidation or physical force with intent to influence testimony in an official proceeding. § 914.22(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987). The trial court found subsections 914.-22(1)(a) and (3) unconstitutional. We affirm.

We agree that subsection 914.-22(1)(a) is unconstitutionally vague because [356]*356it is not clear whether it proscribes conduct that influences another to testify truthfully, falsely or both. See State v. Cohen, 545 So.2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We also agree that subsection 914.22(3), unconstitutionally relieves the state of its burden to prove unlawful activity and intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The subsection provides for an affirmative defense to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s conduct was lawful and that his intent was to influence another to testify truthfully. Id.

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 So. 2d 355, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3024, 1990 WL 57818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chapman-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack