State v. Washington
114 So. 3d 182
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Florida legislature amended §893.13 to §893.101 after Behrman-era cases held knowledge of illicit nature was an element; §893.101 states knowledge is not an element and lack of knowledge is an affirmative defense with a permissive presumption instruction.
- Trial court dismissed 39 felony charges on facial due process grounds, attempting to follow a federal order (Shelton) rather than Florida precedents.
- Taylor v. State (Florida Supreme Court) upheld facial constitutionality of §893.13 as amended; district courts likewise rejected facial challenges on due process grounds.
- Trial court treated Shelton as binding, but Florida law holds only Supreme Court decisions bind state courts; lower federal orders are persuasive but not binding.
- This appeal argues trial court failed to follow binding Florida precedents (Taylor and district decisions) and erred in applying Staples-based analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in ignoring binding Taylor precedent | Taylor governs; precedents binding on trial courts | Trial court may disagree but must follow binding precedent | Yes; trial court erred in ignoring binding precedent |
| Whether Shelton was misapplied as binding precedent | Shelton is persuasive but not binding on state courts | Trial court followed Shelton's federal reasoning | Yes; Shelton not binding on Florida courts; misapplied |
| Whether §893.13, as amended, creates strict liability or general intent with affirmative defense | Statute creates general intent crimes with affirmative defense for lack of knowledge | Statute was argued as strict liability by Shelton | Statute creates general intent crimes; not strict liability |
| Whether Staples analysis applies to §893.13 | Staples analysis not applicable to a statute with an explicit legislative intent | Staples governs mans rea implications when silent | Inapplicable; Staples analysis does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 929 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (facial challenge to §893.13 as amended rejected on due process grounds)
- Williams v. State, 45 So.3d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (due process analysis cited in support of §893.101 intent)
- Johnson v. State, 37 So.3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (due process analysis cited in support of §893.101)
- Harris v. State, 932 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (due process analysis cited in support of §893.101)
- Tolbert v. State, 925 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (due process analysis in district courts)
- Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (due process analysis cited)
- Smith v. State, 901 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (due process analysis cited)
- Burnette v. State, 901 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (due process analysis cited)
- Dwyer, 332 So.2d 333 (Fla. 1976) (binding authority on inter-district obligations)
- Stanfill v. State, 384 So.2d 141 (Fla.1980) (districts bound by Supreme Court decisions)
- Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992) (districts must follow higher court holdings)
- Behrman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922) (due process challenges to statutes without mens rea elements)
- Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922) (federal precedent on mens rea necessity)
- Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial validity requires no set of circumstances stands)
- Staples, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (test for when absence of mens rea can be inferred from statute's text)