CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1491
...Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and John W. Tiedemann, and Elizabeth Masters, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. ZEHMER, Judge. Defendants below, Richard O. Powell and Freddie D. Roulhac, appeal their convictions of malpractice by a jailer in violation of section 950.09, Florida Statutes (1985)....
...Appellants are correctional officers at the Jackson County Jail. On March 6, 1986, separate two-count informations were filed against each appellant charging him with aggravated battery under section
784.045, a felony, and malpractice by a jailer under section
950.09, a misdemeanor....
...A similar incident involving Lambert Gavin, a juvenile inmate of the jail, gave rise to informations charging appellants with aggravated child abuse and malpractice by a jailer. Appellants unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the informations in both cases, contending that section 950.09 is unconstitutional because the statute is so vague and indefinite that it fails to convey a sufficient warning as to the type conduct prohibited....
...Roulhac told him he'd have to "stay up a little bit more longer" and didn't release Evans until approximately thirty minutes had elapsed. Since this is an appeal from a finding of guilty, we must accept as true the version of the facts given by Evans. The judge instructed the jury on the offense proscribed by section 950.09 and stated in part that "[d]uress consists in any illegal imprisonment, or legal imprisonment used for an illegal purpose or threats of bodily or other harm, and then inhumanity and oppression are defined as an extreme or aggravated cr...
...In each case the trial court entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt as to each appellant, placing each appellant on probation for a total of six months, and ordering each appellant to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. Appellants contend that section 950.09 does not set forth the elements of the crime of "malpractice by a jailer" and does not contain any standards for determining what conduct amounts to malpractice....
...1974). It is only necessary that the language of the statute convey a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. State v. Reese,
222 So.2d 732, 736 (Fla. 1969). In deciding whether section
950.09 is unconstitutionally vague, we necessarily focus upon the phrase "willful inhumanity and oppression" to determine whether the words "inhumanity" and "oppression" convey sufficient warning of ascertainable proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices....
...We have considered the cases cited by appellants and find them inapplicable because none of the cited cases construe the statutory language at issue in this case. Finding no infirmity in the language of the statute, the appealed convictions are AFFIRMED. THOMPSON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 950.09, first enacted in 1832, defines malpractice by a jailer as follows: If any jailer shall, by too great duress of imprisonment or otherwise, make or induce a prisoner to disclose and give evidence against some other person, or be guilty...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1789
...Allen, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnis, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Elizabeth Masters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. BARFIELD, Judge. The issue presented in this appeal is whether section 950.09, Florida Statutes *1046 (1985), proscribing malpractice by a jailer, is impermissibly vague and therefore violative of the Florida and federal constitutions....
...men may conform their conduct so as to avoid that which is forbidden. Rose v. Locke,
423 U.S. 48,
96 S.Ct. 243,
46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975). In Powell v. State,
508 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), this court recently upheld the constitutional validity of section
950.09 in the face of a contention that the statute is so vague and indefinite that it fails to convey a sufficient warning as to the type of conduct which it prohibits. The appellants in that case pled nolo contendere to charges of violating section
950.09 in an incident involving a juvenile inmate and were tried by a jury on similar charges arising from an incident involving another inmate after they unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the informations in both cases. This court's opinion included the facts determined at trial and commented upon the propriety of applying the law to those facts. In this case, Dale Sims pled nolo contendere to the charge of malpractice by a jailer under section
950.09, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss which was based on a contention that the statute was unconstitutionally vague....
...1974). It is only necessary that the language of the statute convey a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. State v. Reese,
222 So.2d 732, 736 (Fla. 1969). In deciding whether section
950.09 is unconstitutionally vague, we necessarily focus upon the phrase "willful inhumanity and oppression" to determine whether the words "inhumanity" and "oppression" convey sufficient warning of ascertainable proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and *1047 practices....
