145 So. 3d 997
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Charlie Williams was acquitted of lewd or lascivious molestation of a 15-year-old but convicted at the same trial of three counts of tampering with a witness based on letters he wrote from jail to his girlfriend.
- The letters urged the girlfriend to go to court, assert an alternative version of events, and promised money/gifts if she cooperated; Williams testified he sought only to have them "tell the truth."
- The tampering statute at issue criminalizes offering pecuniary benefit with intent to cause a person to, among other things, "testify untruthfully." (§ 914.22(1)(f))
- At trial the jury was instructed that the State need only prove Williams acted with the purpose to "influence" testimony generally, without the required element that the influence was intended to produce untruthful testimony.
- Defense counsel did not request an instruction specifying "untruthfully" nor contemporaneously object; he later raised the instruction error in a post-trial motion.
- The First DCA found the jury instruction omitted an essential, disputed element (intent to induce untruthful testimony), constituting fundamental error requiring reversal and a new trial on the tampering counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction omitted the element that inducement must be to cause a witness to testify untruthfully | State: instruction adequately tracked charged subsections and was sufficient | Williams: instruction allowed conviction for attempts to influence truthful testimony; omission of "untruthfully" relieved State of proving a required element | Court: Instruction was erroneous and constituted fundamental error because it failed to require proof of intent to induce untruthful testimony |
| Whether the omission was waived by defense counsel | State: defense acquiesced at charge conference and therefore waived the issue | Williams: counsel did not affirmatively request or knowingly agree to the defective instruction; mere acquiescence is not waiver | Court: No waiver; record shows only unknowing acquiescence, so waiver exception does not apply |
| Whether the instructional error was harmless | State: any error was harmless given the evidence | Williams: error was not harmless because it implicated an essential disputed element | Court: Fundamental error cannot be harmless when a disputed element is misstated; reversal required |
| Scope of retrial given acquittal on molestation charge | State: argued instruction sufficed and convictions stand; retrial implications not addressed | Williams: sought new trial on tampering only; double jeopardy bars retrial on acquitted molestation count | Court: Reversed tampering convictions and remanded for new trial; molestation count may not be retried due to double jeopardy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cohen, 568 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1990) (statutory language criminalizing witness influence found unconstitutionally vague and a catch-22)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (jury must be correctly instructed on elements; incorrect instruction that precludes true verdict is reversible)
- Blandon v. State, 657 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (jurors must know what constitutes a criminal act to distinguish criminal from noncriminal conduct)
- Daniels v. State, 121 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2013) (failure to instruct correctly on an element in dispute constitutes fundamental error)
- Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1991) (defense counsel who affirmatively requests an erroneous instruction waives challenge on appeal)
- Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2002) (whether evidence is overwhelming is irrelevant to whether an incorrect instruction is fundamental)
- Gerds v. State, 64 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1953) (defendant entitled to correct instruction on material elements of the crime)