Gary Czajkowski v. State of Florida
178 So. 3d 498
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant (Gary Czajkowski) convicted on 14 counts of unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior and 1 count of conspiracy under § 838.016(1), Florida Statutes (2008).
- Indictment alleged defendant’s company gave valuable gifts (Breitling watch, hotel stays, NASCAR tickets, cruise, gift cards) to municipal employees with whom the company did business to influence official action.
- Defense moved to dismiss, arguing § 838.016(1) is unconstitutionally vague as applied because it includes the undefined element “not authorized by law,” depriving fair notice and inviting arbitrary enforcement.
- State argued the phrase is clarified by related ethics statutes (§ 112.313(2) and (4)) and sought a jury instruction defining “not authorized by law” per § 112.313(4).
- Trial court denied the motion, instructed the jury using the § 112.313(4) definition, jury convicted on all counts, and defendant appealed raising the vagueness challenge primarily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 838.016(1)’s phrase “not authorized by law” is unconstitutionally vague as applied | State: statute gives adequate notice; § 112.313(2) and (4) supply meaningful definitions and guidance | Czajkowski: phrase is undefined in statute and jury instructions, so statute is vague and invites arbitrary enforcement | Court: statute is not unconstitutionally vague; meaning can be ascertained from related ethics statutes, case law, and plain meaning; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoberman v. State, 400 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1981) (rejected vagueness challenge to unlawful compensation statute)
- State v. Brake, 796 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2001) (statutory terms may be clarified by dictionary/plain meaning to cure vagueness)
- State v. Rodriquez, 365 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1978) (context can limit “not authorized by law” to the applicable regulatory scheme)
- Wershow, 343 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1977) (due process requires penal statutes give definite warning)
- Locklin v. Pridgeon, 30 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1947) (broader use of “not authorized by law” distinguished by later cases)
- Henry v. State, 134 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2014) (statutory constitutionality and dismissal rulings reviewed de novo)