STATE OF FLORIDA v. WENDY B. CARRIER, 240 So. 3d 852

Background

Defendants Christopher and Wendy Carrier were charged with 56 counts under Fla. Stat. § 585.145(3) for forging, counterfeiting, simulating, or altering official certificates of veterinary inspection (CVIs); charges allege specific document-identification numbers and amended to omit possession language.
Wendy operated a Petland franchise selling puppies; Christopher (a veterinarian) signed CVIs for puppies sold at his wife’s business but allegedly signed correct forms for other clients.
The alleged alterations included: removing gridlines from immunization sections so more entries fit, replacing vaccine names with codes/lot numbers, using an older state seal, and removing the footer with state contact/distribution information.
Probable cause affidavits recorded sworn admissions that Wendy created/altered the forms and Christopher issued the altered forms; the State also alleged some purchasers’ dogs became sick or died and that Christopher lacked authority to sign CVIs during the charged period.
Trial court granted motions to dismiss, holding § 585.145(3) facially vague (term “alters”) and violative of substantive due process because it could criminalize innocent alterations lacking mens rea.
On appeal, the Second District reversed: it construed “alters” in context with “forges, counterfeits, simulates” to require a knowing alteration that renders the document false or deceptive, and held the statute is not facially vague nor a substantive-due-process violation under that construction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 585.145(3) criminalizes innocent conduct by lacking a mens rea for “alters”	State: the statute applies to forging/altering and should be applied to these factual allegations; amended charges removed mere-possession language.	Carriers: “alters” has no scienter, so innocuous edits (PDF edits, font/logo changes, removing lines) could be criminalized.	Court: Read “alters” to include a knowledge requirement (knowing alteration) but not require specific intent to defraud; statute does not criminalize innocuous alterations when construed to require that alteration make the document false or deceptive.
Whether § 585.145(3) is facially void for vagueness (term “alters” and “official certificate of veterinary inspection”)	State: statute is clear as applied to the Carriers’ alleged conduct; trial-stage record insufficient for facial vagueness finding.	Carriers: “alters” is undefined and ambiguous; statute could reach trivial/innocent changes.	Court: statute not facially vague when read in context to proscribe knowing alterations that make a certificate false or deceptive; “official certificate” was not vague as applied.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hagan, 387 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1980) (litigant cannot challenge statute portion that does not affect them)
Wegner v. State, 928 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (presumption of constitutionality and instruction to construe criminal statutes to include scienter when appropriate)
State v. Giorgetti, 868 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2004) (courts presume legislature intended knowledge requirement absent contrary indication)
State v. Koczwara, 837 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (declining to read a specific intent-to-defraud element where statute lacked it)
Newberger v. State, 641 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (ordinary meaning of “alter” = change or modify)
State v. Saiez, 489 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1986) (vagueness/substantive due process concerns where statute criminalized otherwise innocent possession)
State v. Thomas, 133 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (invalidating possession-based counterfeiting provisions that reached innocent conduct)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (modernized vagueness analysis emphasizing that a statute may be invalid even if some conduct is clearly covered)
People v. Bratis, 141 Cal. Rptr. 45 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (reading “alter” in context with forgery/counterfeiting to require intent to defraud)