State v. Porcaro

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Porcaro

539 So. 2d 615, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 723, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1437, 1989 WL 24743

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 1989

DocketNo. 87-2597

StatusPublished

This text of 539 So. 2d 615 (State v. Porcaro) 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. Porcaro, 539 So. 2d 615, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 723, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1437, 1989 WL 24743 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

LETTS, Judge.

The question is whether there was prima facie evidence of extortion, the trial court being of the opinion that there was not when it granted a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss. We reverse.

In Matthews v. State, 363 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 2825, 61 L.Ed.2d 276 (1979), our supreme court enunciated that “in order for a demand and threat to be actionable under our extortion statute, it must be calculated to coerce the victim’s acquiescence ‘in order to prevent the threat from being carried out.’ ”

With this definition in mind, we are of the opinion that the threats involved here were more than adequate to state a prima facie case of guilt.

We have not enunciated the facts because we see no reason to memorialize the ugly and disgusting language employed. Suffice it to say, this cause is reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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