STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL WELBORN, 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.
Florida charged a corrections officer with violating a statute criminalizing escape by negligence, but the trial court dismissed on constitutional grounds. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statute violates constitutional principles because it punishes purely negligent conduct without requiring willfulness or culpable negligence.
The statute is unconstitutional as written because it criminalizes purely negligent conduct without requiring a showing of willfulness or culpable negligence. The court rejected the state's alternative argument that the statute could be saved through a limiting construction requiring culpable negligence.
[1] A statute criminalizing escape by a corrections officer through simple negligence, without requiring a showing of willfulness or culpable negligence, is unconstitutional.
[2] A statute that makes purely negligent conduct a crime without a showing of willfulness or culpable negligence is unconstitutional.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a jailer or other officer, through negligence, suffers a prisoner in his custody upon conviction of any criminal charge to escape, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.”
The challenged statute as written, criminalizing simple negligence without requiring willfulness or culpable negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee Paul Welborn was a corrections officer at Glades Correctional Institute when six inmates escaped. He was charged under Florida Statute sectio…
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 Criminal Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Appellee was a corrections officer at Glades Correctional Institute when six inmates escaped. He was charged with violating section 843.10, Florida Statutes (1995), which provides as follows:
Escape by negligence of officer. — If a jailer or other officer, through negligence, suffers a prisoner in his custody upon conviction of any criminal charge to escape, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
The trial court dismissed the charges on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional. We affirm.
In State v. Winters, 346 So. 2d 991 (Fla.1977), our supreme court held a statute criminalizing the negligent treatment of children unconstitutional because it made purely negligent conduct a crime without a showing of willfulness or even culpable negligence. Eighteen years later this court held that amendments to the same statute did not cure the defect which was the basis of the supreme court’s decision in Winters. State v. Mincey, 658 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), (holding section 827.05, Florida Statutes (1993) unconstitutional and certifying the question as one of great public importance).
When the appellant challenged the constitutionality of the statute under which he was charged, the state conceded that our decision in Mincey required the trial court to hold it unconstitutional. The state appealed, however, hoping that the supreme court would reverse our decision in Mincey. After the briefs were filed on this appeal, the Florida supreme court approved our decision in Mincey. State v. Mincey, 672 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1996). Because we are unable to discern any distinction between the statute involved in the present case, and the statute involving negligent treatment of children, so far as the constitutional issue is concerned, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that section 843.10 is unconstitutional.
The state makes an alternative argument, asking us to interpret the statute to require culpable negligence on the theory that this limiting construction would cure the problem. The state advanced this same argument in a case involving a statute which criminalized pollution resulting from simple negligence; however, our supreme court concluded that such an interpretation would not be appropriate. State v. Hamilton, 388 So. 2d 561 (Fla.1980). We therefore reject that argument.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Winters, 346 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Hamilton, 388 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Mincey, 672 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Mincey, 658 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)