125 So. 3d 1007
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Calamia was convicted by jury of extortion under Fla. Stat. § 836.05 (2009).
- The principal issue concerns the jury instruction defining “maliciously” as “intentionally and without lawful justification.”
- Calamia previously pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and violated probation, leading to GPS monitoring and later probation-related proceedings.
- Calamia’s attorney reported a threat letter to the assistant state attorney; the State used the letter to pursue probation violation, and the letter was later used at trial.
- The trial court instructed that a threat may be written or printed to a third party (a lawyer) and still support extortion, without requiring direct reach to the threatened person.
- The Florida Supreme Court’s Carnearte line of authority was cited as influencing the malice standard, and the panel reversed and remanded for a new trial with national public-importance certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malice standard for extortion | Calamia urged actual malice should govern extortion. | State argued legal malice suffices per Alonso. | Actual malice is the proper standard; error to use legal malice. |
| Communication to coercive effect | Instruction did not require direct reach to coerced person; third-party communication suffices if intended to reach the coerced party. | State argued no fundamental error; res judicata not applicable. | Instruction erroneous; requires remand for a new trial with proper communication standard. |
| Conflict and public-importance | Conflict with Alonso and Dudley; proper standard should be actual malice. | State may rely on existing district rulings. | Conflict certified; question of great public importance certified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alonso v. State, 447 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (malice defined as willful and without lawful justification in extortion)
- Carricarte v. State, 384 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1980) (extortion involves intentionally malicious threats to injure to extort)
- Dudley v. State, 634 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (double jeopardy with extortion and criminal threat; communications to the threatened person)
- Gaylord v. State, 356 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1978) (malice means ill will; used to discuss vagueness in child abuse statute)
- Carnearte v. State, 384 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 1980) (extortion malice standard discussed by Supreme Court with other authorities)