Florida
Curry v. Florida, 811 So.2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
The court overturned the defendant's aggravated stalking
conviction. The court held that the defendant's conduct; which consisted of
making complaints about the victim to various law enforcement agencies, the
cities of Stuart and Vero Beach, and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles; was constitutionally protected and served a "legitimate purpose"
within the meaning of the stalking statute.
Jordan v. Florida, 802
So.2d 1180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
The court found that there was
sufficient evidence to uphold the defendant's stalking conviction. The defendant
repeatedly attempted to contact the victim despite the existence of an
injunction prohibiting him from doing so and there was evidence from which the
jury could have concluded that the conduct had caused substantial emotional
distress to the victim.
Florida v. Wheeler, 745 So.2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
The court held that the trial court's dismissal of the defendant?s
prosecution for aggravated stalking was improper. The trial judge based his
dismissal order solely on the victim's desire not to pursue prosecution and his
belief that justice would be best served by terminating the case since the
parties had settled their differences and the defendant was not a threat to
society or the victim. The court ruled that the judge's actions constituted an
improper infringement on the state attorney's discretion to prosecute.
Additionally the court stated that the decision to prosecute did not lie with
the victim of the crime.
Marinelli v. Florida, 706 So.2d 1374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
The court held that the defendant?s
convictions of two counts of misdemeanor stalking violated the double jeopardy
clause of the United States Constitution. The court stated that the defendant
was adjudicated guilty of two misdemeanor stalking offenses based on one course
of conduct. The two offenses required identical elements of proof and violated
double jeopardy. The court directed the trial court to impose a single
conviction for misdemeanor stalking.
McKinnon v. Florida, 712 So.2d 1259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998 )
The court upheld the defendant's aggravated
stalking conviction. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the defendant had harassed the victim in violation of an
injunction. The evidence established that the defendant had called the victim
and subsequently went to her apartment building. He remained in the building
within visual distance of her sister's apartment, and peered into her sister's
apartment. These contacts were not innocent or accidental, and the victim was
frightened. The defendant's conviction was affirmed.
Goosen v. Walker, 714 So.2d 1149 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
The court held that the defendant's
videotaping the victims (his neighbors) on two to four occasions during the
previous four months, when the victims were in their own yard or the adjoining
area, was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the defendant's
conduct constituted stalking.
Butler v. Florida, 715 So.2d 339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
The court found that the defendant's aggravated stalking conviction should be
overturned. The court held that the evidence did not prove that the victim
suffered any "emotional distress," nor was there any evidence establishing a
"series of acts," as required by the statute. The court found that the incidents
that did occur (defendant struck victim on one occasion, threw a chair through a
window on the same occasion, was insistent and abusive with the victim at her
child's school on another occasion, and then returned to the school and
physically attacked the victim) were disjointed and discrete from each other and
were not instances of repeated harassing conduct.
Florida v.
Jones , 678 So.2d 1336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
The court reversed the dismissal of the defendant's stalking prosecution and
held that despite an earlier prosecution, double jeopardy did not prevent the
defendant from being prosecuted for stalking the victim. When a defendant
repeatedly followed or harassed the victim with the requisite intent, he may be
guilty of aggravated stalking. If, after prosecution for the offense, the
accused again repeatedly followed or harassed the victim, again with the
requisite intent, he has committed another aggravated stalking.
Bouters v. Florida, 659 So.2d 235 (Fla.
1995)
The court concluded that the stalking statute was neither
unconstitutionally overbroad nor vague. The court stated that stalking, whether by word or
deed, falls outside the scope of the First Amendment. The defendant?s actions
repeatedly calling and threatening the victim, violating a domestic violence
injunction, battering the victim, and threatening to kill the victim, did not
qualify for First Amendment protection.
Pallas v. Florida, 636 So.2d 1358 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
The court upheld the defendant's conviction for aggravated stalking and
affirmed the constitutionality of the stalking statute. The court found that
the statute gave fair notice of the proscribed activity and
was not void for vagueness. In the statute, the legislature
proscribed willful, malicious, and repeated acts of harassment that were directed at a
specific person, that served no legitimate purpose, and that would
cause substantial emotional distress in a reasonable person.
Florida v. Miranda Jr., 644 So.2d 342
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
The defendant's prosecution
for both criminal contempt of a domestic violence injunction and aggravated
stalking did not constitute double jeopardy. The court held that the aggravated
stalking charge included elements not included in the criminal contempt charge,
and the contempt charge included elements not included in the aggravated
stalking charge. For example, in aggravated stalking, a person must knowingly,
willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or harass another person. There
was no such requirement in the elements of the criminal contempt
charge.