Cosio v. State
227 So. 3d 209
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Carl Cosio's Tampa yard accumulated newspapers, bottles, cans, toys, vehicle parts, and extensive vegetation overgrowth; city code inspections and citations spanned 2013–2015.
- City code enforcement found the property a public nuisance, ordered abatement, and the city conducted a three-day abatement cutting trees/brush and removing debris in October 2016.
- The City removed accumulated personal effects plus felled trees/brush and hauled them away; the code inspector testified ~50 tons removed and independently stated the "accumulated trash" exceeded 100 cubic feet.
- Cosio was charged with felony littering under Fla. Stat. § 403.413(4) and (6)(c) (exceeding 500 pounds or 100 cubic feet), tried before a jury, found guilty, adjudication withheld, and sentenced to probation, restitution, and fine.
- Post-trial Cosio moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the city’s inclusion of live vegetation/overgrowth (cut by the city) in the litter measurement was improper and that the remaining litter did not meet the felony threshold.
- The court rejected statutory-construction challenge about live vegetation and denied acquittal; appellate court affirms but limits "litter" to discarded materials, not live rooted vegetation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether live/overgrown trees and vegetation cleared by the city qualify as "litter" under § 403.413 | Cosio: live, rooted plant life (and trees felled by the city) are not "litter" and cannot be counted toward felony thresholds | State: statute's list includes "wood," "building material," and "substance from agricultural operations," so felled trees/brush qualify as litter | Court: live, verdant, rooted plant life is not "litter"; felled overgrowth cut by city was not dumped by Cosio and thus cannot be treated as his dumped litter |
| Whether the State proved Cosio "dumped" the vegetation (i.e., that Cosio "placed, deposited, discarded" the cut vegetation) | Cosio: he did not dump the trees/brush; city employees cut and removed them | State: lump-sum removal numbers and inspector testimony support counting removed material toward felony threshold | Court: Cosio did not "dump" the trees/overgrowth; city removed them; therefore those materials cannot be attributed to Cosio as dumped litter |
| Whether evidence supported felony-level quantity (≥500 lbs or ≥100 cu ft) of statutorily proscribed litter excluding overgrowth | Cosio: excluding vegetation, remaining personal effects did not meet the statutory weight/volume thresholds | State: inspector testimony and multiple photographs showed massive accumulations of personal effects exceeding 100 cubic feet | Court: viewing evidence favorably to the State, testimony and photos sufficed for a rational jury to find the required amount of proscribed litter beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether dumping litter on one's own property can violate § 403.413(4)(c) when it causes a public nuisance | Cosio: (also challenged nuisance element) neighbors were not seriously bothered | State: municipal code and enforcement board found nuisance; prior administrative finding unrebutted | Court: dumping on private property can violate § 403.413(4)(c) when it causes a public nuisance; sufficient evidence supported nuisance finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- Stratton v. Sarasota County, 983 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (use of noscitur a sociis in statutory construction)
- Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074 (U.S. 2015) (applying noscitur a sociis to limit statutory reach)
- Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1995) (canon that a word is known by the company it keeps)
- State v. Davis, 838 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (discussing when dumping on one's own property violates Florida Litter Law)
- Nicholas v. State, 47 So. 3d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (judgment of acquittal standards reaffirmed)