113 So. 3d 28
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ramirez worked clerical job at bail bond agency; one prior felony with adjudication withheld; both Ramirez and employer charged under §648.44(8)(a); violation carries third-degree felony; Ramirez argued lack of mens rea; trial court denied motion to dismiss; Ramirez pled to attempted violation and reserved appeal rights; court held mens rea must be read into employee conduct under §648.44(8)(a) to avoid absurd result; remand for amended information and potential withdrawal of plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mens rea is required for §648.44(8)(a) as applied to an employee | Ramirez: no knowledge element for employee | State: no knowledge element read-in; statute is strict liability for employees | Mens rea must be read into employee conduct |
| If mens rea is required, whether the conviction must be reversed and remanded | Ramirez: plea should be withdrawn | State: may amend information | Remand with withdrawal right; potential amended information |
Key Cases Cited
- Wegner v. State, 928 So.2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (read-in of mens rea to avoid unconstitutional strict liability)
- State v. Giorgetti, 868 So.2d 512 (Fla.2004) (statutes presumed to include mens rea unless clearly otherwise)
- Parker v. State, 406 So.2d 1089 (Fla.1981) (departure from literal statute allowed to avoid illogical result)
- State v. Brigham, 694 So.2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (absurd result rule in statutory interpretation)