Amendments to 838.021

1. State v. Slaughter

   574 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 8 times

   The state appeals an order dismissing with prejudice an information charging that appellee unlawfully threatened unlawful harm to a public servant, to wit: a circuit judge, with the intent to influence said public servant in the performance of his public duty in violation of section 838.021, Florida Statutes. The issue presented is whether section 838.021(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), is unconstitutional because it impermissibly creates a class of protected governmental servants who are protected from threats which have no relation to their official duties. We conclude that the statute is not unconstitutional, and reverse the ruling of the trial court.
2. Harrison v. State

   641 So. 2d 486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 1 times

   • Motion to dismiss

   The State responds that Bragg is not controlling because the defendant was charged under section 838.021 in general, and the court only discussed subsections 838.021( 1)(a) and (b) which do require the defendant to possess the intent to influence a public servant's decision. We do not find the State's attempt to distinguish Bragg convincing. Likewise, we find the cases that the State cites do not support its contention that subsection 838.021( 3)(a) is a crime within itself. In In the Interest of P.J., the Fourth District held only that section 838.021 was not unconstitutionally vague. We acknowledge that in a footnote, the Second District in Smith indicated that the defendant had been convicted, inter alia, of violating subsection 838.021( 3)(b). However, when the opinion is read in its entirety, the Second District clearly recognized that "[sub]section 838.021( 3)(b) is designed to protect public officials in the discharge of their duties without unlawful intimidation." That is the precise conduct proscribed by subsections 838.021( 1)(a) and (b) and the same conduct the State concedes that Harrison did not engage in…

   PAGE 488
3. Bragg v. State

   475 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 6 times

   The elements of the crime of corruption by threat against a public servant are set out in section 838.021, Florida Statutes (1983). That section provides in pertinent part:

   PAGE 1257
4. J.G. v. State

   915 So. 2d 274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 7 times

   Florida Statutes Section 838.021, Corruption by Threat Against Public Servant, makes it a felony to harm or to threaten harm with the intent or purpose to influence a public servant to do, or not do, an act within the discretion of the public servant, or in violation, or performance, of a public duty.

   PAGE 276
5. Hart v. State

   761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 204 times

   We affirm Appellant's conviction for corruption by threat under section 838.021, Florida Statutes (1997). Appellant argues that the information actually charged Appellant with harming the officer in question, rather than threatening to harm him, and because there was no evidence that Appellant physically harmed the officer, he should have been acquitted. Section 838.021 provides that an accused can be convicted of "corruption by threat" in one of two ways; either unlawfully harming a public servant or unlawfully threatening to harm a public servant. The information under which Appellant was charged states, "William Hart . . . did unlawfully harm a public servant, to-wit. . . . William Hart did threaten to get said officer and conduct a cross burning with plenty of rounds (bullets) at said officer's house if [the officer] placed defendant under arrest, . . . contrary to . . . F.S. 838.021(1)(a), (3)(a)."
6. Reilly v. State, Dept. of Corrections

   847 F. Supp. 951 (M.D. Fla. 1994)   Cited 6 times

   3 more...

   Petitioner argues that the term "harm" as used in § 838.021 and as defined in § 838.014 is subject to many interpretations and therefore is overbroad. Section 838.021 prohibits threats to influence a public servant in the performance of a public duty. Smith v. State, 532 So.2d 50, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Because of the statute's limited objectives and because threats to injure persons are not constitutionally protected, no First Amendment rights are compromised by legislation prohibiting such threats. Accordingly, § 838.021 is not overbroad.

   PAGE 957
7. Johnson v. State

   185 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

   To prove the crime of corrupting a public servant by threat pursuant to section 838.021(1), the State must prove that a defendant “harm[ed] or threaten[ed] to harm any public servant, his or her immediate family, or any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested.” § 838.021(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011)(emphasis added). The legislature has defined “harm” as used in Chapter 838, Florida Statutes (2011), to mean “pecuniary or other loss, disadvantage, or injury to the person affected.” § 838.014(5), Fla. Stat. (2011) (emphasis added). Thus, a defendant need not use or threaten to use physical force or violence in order to violate section 838.021(1)(a). A threat to harm the public servant's pecuniary interests is sufficient. Because the crime of corrupting a public servant by threat can be committed without the use or threat of physical force or violence, and it is not an enumerated felony, it does not qualify for PRR sentencing. Accordingly, we reverse for the appellant to be resentenced without the PRR designation. See Johnson v. State, 985 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

   PAGE 1284
8. Miller v. State

   667 So. 2d 325 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 20 times

   • Motion to dismiss

   Section 838.021, Florida Statutes, states,

   PAGE 328
9. Teele v. State

   954 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

   The elements of the crime of corruption by threat against a public servant are set out in section 838.021, Florida Statutes (2004). That section provides, in pertinent part:

   PAGE 1199
10. J.B. v. State

    304 So. 3d 352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    • Motion to dismiss

    § 838.021, Fla. Stat. (2019). See also J.G. v. State , 915 So. 2d 274, 275-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming denial of juvenile's motion for dismissal of corruption by threat charge under section 838.021, where the juvenile had argued the state failed to prove his threatening statements to kill a school employee were made with the intention of influencing a public servant's performance; the juvenile made the statements in an angry and loud voice in a school suspension room where fifteen to twenty other students and a supervisor were present; and when confronted about the statement, the juvenile replied, "I meant what I said," supporting the inference that the juvenile intended the statements not as private communications, but with the intent that the employee be informed of his statements).

    PAGE 357