143 So. 3d 936
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- State charged Lisa Roberts (an Indiana resident) with fraudulent use of personal identification under § 817.568(2)(a), alleging she used her Florida-resident aunt’s name and SSN to open an Indiana utility account.
- Trial court dismissed for lack of Florida jurisdiction, finding no part of the offense occurred in Florida under § 910.005(1)(a).
- The State appealed, arguing Florida could exercise jurisdiction because an element of the offense — use without prior consent — implicates an omission to perform a duty imposed by Florida law.
- The statute defining the offense requires use of another’s personal identification “without that person’s authorization or prior consent,” making lack of consent an element of the crime.
- The jurisdiction statute (§ 910.005) provides that an offense is partly committed in Florida if an element (conduct or result) occurs in Florida, and that offenses based on omissions to perform duties imposed by Florida law are committed in Florida regardless of the offender’s location.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida has jurisdiction over Roberts for using aunt’s PII to open an out-of-state utility account | State: jurisdiction exists because element (use without prior consent) is an omission to perform a duty imposed by Florida law and thus occurred in Florida | Roberts: no part of the offense occurred in Florida; act was committed outside Florida so Florida lacks jurisdiction | Reversed: Florida has jurisdiction because the omission (failure to obtain consent) is an element and a duty imposed by Florida law |
Key Cases Cited
- Sibley v. State, 955 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (identifies lack of victim consent as element of § 817.568 offense)
- Williams v. State, 57 So.3d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (victim consent defense negates an element of criminal use of personal identification)
- Townshend v. State, 965 So.2d 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (vacating conviction where State failed to prove lack of authorization)
- State v. Costa, 558 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (Florida jurisdiction where offense violated Florida court order — omission to perform duty imposed by Florida law)
- People v. Caruso, 119 Ill.2d 376 (Ill. 1987) (omission to perform duty imposed by state law supports jurisdiction despite offender’s location)
- State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 (Kan. 2003) (Kansas had jurisdiction for omissions violating state duty even though acts occurred outside state)
- State v. McGill, 115 Or.App. 122 (Or. Ct. App. 1992) (jurisdiction resides where legal duty omitted is required to be performed)
- Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1911) (acts outside jurisdiction producing detrimental effects within justify state punishment)