260 So. 3d 911
Fla.2018Background
- On March 8, 2015, McCloud allegedly assaulted his wife, broke her phone, grabbed his 12‑year‑old daughter’s phone, and said, “You can't call the cops on me.” He also brandished a gun and threatened to kill the victim.
- The State charged McCloud with witness tampering under section 914.22(1)(e), among other offenses; jury convicted him of witness tampering, battery, and assault.
- Defense moved for judgment of acquittal arguing (relying on First District precedent) that the State had to prove the witness was attempting to contact law enforcement when the interference occurred.
- The Second District rejected that requirement, affirmed the conviction, and certified conflict with the First District’s decision in McCray v. State.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict over whether section 914.22(1)(e) includes as an element a witness’s attempt to contact law enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 914.22(1)(e) requires proof that the witness was attempting to contact law enforcement during the incident | State: statute penalizes knowingly using force/threats with intent to hinder communication; no additional element required | McCloud: under First District precedent, State must show the witness attempted to contact police to prove intent to hinder communication | Court: No. The plain language does not make a witness’s attempt to contact law enforcement an element; conviction affirmed and First District line disapproved |
Key Cases Cited
- McCray v. State, 171 So.3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (held witness must be attempting to contact law enforcement for tampering conviction)
- Longwell v. State, 123 So.3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (earlier First District decision treating attempt to contact police as an element)
- Taffe v. State, 232 So.3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (adopted Second District’s reading; rejected First District line)
- State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1983) (discussing predecessor statute and intent requirements)
- State v. Jackson, 526 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1988) (court may not add elements to clearly defined crime)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction)