M.C., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that manually assisting a malfunctioning railroad crossing arm that was already blocking traffic does not constitute 'interference' under the statute.
A juvenile assisted motorists by lifting a railroad crossing arm that was stuck in the down position, blocking traffic. The State charged the juvenile…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Principle Of Lenity cases and more on FLexlaw
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 nonfunctioning and obstructing the flow of traffic, the juvenile’s conduct in manually assisting the device’s ordinary function was not an interference.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.C. v. State, 695 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…So. 2d 348, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In construing another penal statute, we have already determined that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “interfere” means “[t]o come between so as to be a hindrance or obstacle; impede.” See M.C. v. State, 614 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (quoting American Heritage Dictionary 669 (2d College Ed.1985)). We find that the term “disrupt” is synonymous with “interfere” and its plain and ordinary meaning is “[t]o throw into confusion or disorder ... [t]o interrupt or imp…
-
O.p.-G. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…So. 2d 348, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In construing another penal statute, we have already determined that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “interfere” means “[t]o come between so as to be a hindrance or obstacle; impede.” See M.C. v. State, 614 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (quoting Interfere, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 669 (2d College Ed. 1985)). We find that the term “disrupt” is synonymous with “interfere” and its plain and ordinary meaning is “[t]o throw into confusion o…
Authorities Cited
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)