MICHAEL DAVID CAMPBELL, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Campbell was convicted under Florida's child abuse statute for beating and whipping his seven-year-old stepdaughter. He appealed claiming the statute was unconstitutionally vague, arguing that the terms "unnecessarily or excessively" failed to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the statute, finding the terms sufficiently definite when read in context and as understood by persons of common intelligence.
The statute is constitutional and not unconstitutionally vague. The words "unnecessarily or excessively" provide a sufficiently definite standard of conduct when considered in context of the entire statute and understood in their plain and ordinary meaning by reasonable people. Criminal laws need not enumerate specific prohibited acts to avoid vagueness when they describe conduct in general language that persons of common understanding can comprehend.
[1] A statute prohibiting "unnecessarily or excessively" punishing a child is not unconstitutionally vague when read in the context of the entire act and with a view to effec…
[2] Criminal laws are not rendered vague by the use of general language to describe prohibited conduct.
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“The particular words complained of, "unnecessarily or excessively" are not vague when considered in the context of the entire Statute and with a view to effectuating the purpose of the act.”
Establishes the court's standard for analyzing vagueness challenges—examining statutory language in full context rather than in isolation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampbell was charged with violating Florida Statutes § 828.04 by beating and whipping his seven-year-old stepdaughter, Christine Violet Bradtmiller, u…
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 Child Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on appeal from the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County. That Court upheld the validity of Florida Statutes § 828.04, F.S.A., thereby vesting jurisdiction of the appeal in this Court under § 4 of Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
Appellant Campbell was charged by Information with violating Florida Statutes § 828.04, F.S.A., which provides:
“Torturing or unlawfully punishing children. — Whoever tortures, torments, cruelly or unlawfully punishes, or willfully with malice, wantonly or unlawfully deprives of necessary food, clothing or shelter any person under the age of sixteen (16) years, and whoever willfully with malice or wantonly torments or deprives of necessary sustenance or raiment, or unnecessarily or excessively chastises, or mutilates his child or ward, or whoever willfully with malice or wantonly deprives such child or ward of necessary treatment and attention, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding 2 years, or by fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) or both.”
Appellant’s motion to dismiss the Information on constitutional grounds was denied. Subsequently he was tried and convicted of “unlawfully punishing a minor child,” as set forth in count 1 of the Information and sentenced to 18 months in the State Penitentiary. He was placed on probation for 2 years.
On appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, the cause was transferred here as being properly within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Appellant contends that Florida Statutes § 828.04, F.S.A. is unconstitutional in that it is too vague and indefinite to meet constitutional standards of due process. Specifically, appellant contends that the words “unnecessarily or excessively” do not sufficiently define a standard of conduct prohibited by The Statute.
We find appellant’s contentions without merit. The particular words complained of, “unnecessarily or excessively” are not vague when considered in the context of the entire Statute and with a view to effectuating the purpose of the act. The fact that specific acts of chastisement are not enumerated, an impossible task at best, does not render the statutory standard void for vagueness. Criminal laws are not “vague” simply because the conduct prohibited is described in general language.1
In the instant case appellant was found guilty of Count 1 of the Information which charged him in the language of the Statute and, specifically, with “beating and whipping” his seven-year old stepdaughter, Christine Violet Bradtmiller, upon the head and body with his fists and a belt. * * * ” The testimony of Officer Campos and others regarding the condition of this child clearly sustain the charge.
Men of common understanding can comprehend the meaning of the words “un*300necessarily or excessively chastise” when read in conjunction with the entire act. The conduct described by the Statute can be determined with reasonable certainty notwithstanding the various methods of disciplining children. There is no doubt that the conduct evidenced in this case constitutes unnecessary and excessive chastisement as those words are understood in their plain and ordinary meaning by rea-sonble men.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Cobb v. State, 376 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1979)…s unconstitutionally vague, in that the phrase “unnecessarily kill” lacks the explicit meaning necessary to apprise men of common understanding of the conduct to which it applies. We upheld a statute containing a similar phrase in Campbell v. State, 240 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1970), where the defendant was charged with “unnecessarily or excessively” chastising a child. We there said: The particular words complained of, “unnecessarily or excessively” are not vague when considered in the context of the entire Statute…
-
Iva Nelson Gonzales v. City OF Belle Glade, 287 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1973)…establish a standard is an obvious distinguishing factor. As to Calbeck, see notes 21-23, infra. . 259 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1972). . Id. at 140-141. (Footnote omitted). Magee relied on Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1971); Campbell v. State, 240 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1970); Smith v. State, 237 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1970), and, McArthur v. State, 191 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1966). Chesebrough involved prosecution for lewd and lascivious' behavior in front of a minor, to-wit: a couple’s intercourse in front of their fourte…
-
Jordan v. State, 334 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1976)…sor to Section 828.04, Florida Statutes, was challenged that the phrase “unnecessarily and excessively chastises”, which remains in subsection (2) of the instant statute, was sufficiently definite when viewed from this standpoint. Campbell v. State, 240 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1970). The Court’s reasoning there applies with equal force to the language at issue here. Additionally, appellant was accused of and tried for the second of the three aforementioned violations; viz., the cruel, wanton, or malicious tormenting…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1951)
- McARTHUR v. State, 191 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1966)
- State ex rel. Farber v. Honorable Gene Williams, 183 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1966)
- Florida ex rel. Farber v. Williams, 385 U.S. 845 (U.S. 1966)