R.T., 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.
R.T., a juvenile, was charged with retaliating against a witness in violation of Florida law. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of R.T.'s motion for judgment of dismissal because the State failed to present evidence that the threat was made in retaliation for witness testimony in an official proceeding, as the threat occurred before any proceeding took place.
The appellate court held that the State failed to establish an essential element of the retaliatory witness offense because there was no evidence that the threat was made in retaliation for witness testimony in an official proceeding. Since the threat occurred before any official proceeding, it could not have been made in retaliation for testimony.
[1] To prove a violation of retaliating against a witness, the State must demonstrate that the defendant knowingly engaged in conduct threatening to cause bodily injury with…
[2] A threat made prior to an official proceeding cannot constitute retaliation for testimony given in that proceeding.
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“To prove a violation of section 914.23(1), the State was required to demonstrate that R.T. knowingly engaged in conduct threatening to cause bodily injury to another person with the intent to retaliate against that person for his testimony as a witness in an official proceeding.”
Establishes the required elements of the witness retaliation offense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.T. was charged with retaliating against a witness under section 914.23(1), Florida Statutes. The evidence established that R.T. threatened the witne…
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 Official Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, R.T., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of dismissal and the subsequent order entered by the trial court withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing R.T. on probation. Because the record reflects that there was insufficient evidence to establish an essential element of the offense charged, we find R.T.’s appeal well-taken. Accordingly, we reverse the orders withholding adjudication of delinquency and denying R.T.’s motion for judgment of dismissal, and remand with instructions to enter an order granting R.T.’s motion for judgment of dismissal.
The pertinent facts are as follows. R.T. was charged with retaliating against a witness in violation of section 914.23(1), Florida Statutes (2008).1 To prove a violation of section 914.23(1), the State was required to demonstrate that R.T. knowingly engaged in conduct threatening to cause bodily injury to another person with the intent to retaliate against that person for his testimony as a witness in an official proceeding. See id.; State v. Jones, 642 So.2d 804, 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Although the evidence supports a finding that R.T. did threaten the witness, the *143record is devoid of any evidence that the alleged threat was in retaliation for the witness’ participation in an official proceeding. In fact, the alleged threat was made prior to any official proceeding taking place. Because the alleged threat occurred prior to the witness’ testimony in an official proceeding, it was clearly not made in retaliation of the witness’ testimony at an official proceeding. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying R.T.’s motion for judgment of dismissal at the close of the State’s case.2
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Nicki Joe Jones, 642 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- State v. Schebel, 723 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1999)
- M.Z. v. State, 747 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)