Home
Criminal Defense Felony Defense DUI Defense Drug Possession Traffic Citation White Collar Crime Computer Crimes Scientific Evidence
Contact Info Graham Syfert Biography News Articles Service Location Blog
Car Accident Lawyer
Menu
904-383-7448
F.S. 914.23 on Google Scholar

F.S. 914.23 on Casetext

Amendments to 914.23


The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 914
WITNESSES; CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 914.23 Florida Statutes and Case Law
914.23 Retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant.—A person who knowingly engages in any conduct that causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for:
(1) The attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or for any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or
(2) Any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense or a violation of a condition of probation, parole, or release pending a judicial proceeding given by a person to a law enforcement officer;

or attempts to do so, is guilty of a criminal offense. If the conduct results in bodily injury, such person is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Otherwise, such person is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—s. 15, ch. 84-363; s. 45, ch. 87-243.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: March 07, 2023
F.S. 914.23 on Google Scholar

F.S. 914.23 on Casetext

Amendments to 914.23


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 914.23
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

914.23 - OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE - INJ RETALIATE AGAINST INFORMANT VICTIM WITNESS - F: S
914.23 - OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE - RETALIATE AGNST INFORMANT VICT WITNESS WO INJ - F: T

Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S914.23
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 914.23.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. Anthony Distribs. v. Miller Brewing Co.

    882 F. Supp. 1024 (M.D. Fla. 1995)   Cited 13 times
    Florida's RICO statute specifies certain acts which qualify as predicate acts. The statute lists violations of "Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices . . . Section 914.22 or s. 914.23, relating to witnesses, victims or informants." Fla.Stat. § 772.102(1)(a)(19) and (30). Plaintiffs' Count XII, supra, is dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing to request civil relief under the statute. However, Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently plead the underlying predicate criminal act of witness tampering.
    PAGE 1035

  2. Lape v. Nocco

    8:20-cv-2996-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2021)
    Lape alleges that the Defendants "engaged in threats or extortion in violation of. . . Fla. Stat. §[§] 914.22 and 914.23, relating to tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant, and retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant." (Doc. 19 at ¶ 41.) Section 914.22 of the Florida Statutes proscribes tampering with a witness or victim and section 914.23 proscribes retaliating against a witness or victim. Because Lape fails to allege any official investigation or proceeding that he attended or testified in or would testify in, he fails to sufficiently plead either section 914.22 or 914.23.
    PAGE 15

  3. State v. Jones

    642 So. 2d 804 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 8 times
    § 914.23, Fla. Stat. (1991) (emphasis added). Section 914.23 is virtually identical to the federal statute which prohibits retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1513 (1984).
    PAGE 805

  4. Kriz v. Nocco

    8:20-cv-2995-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla. Sep. 8, 2021)
    Likewise, Kriz alleges violations of sections 914.22 and 914.23 of the Florida Statutes for harassment and retaliation against witnesses, victims, or informants. Under section 914.24 of the Florida Statutes, civil actions can only be brought for violations of 914.22 and 914.23 "upon application of the state attorney." See also Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 882 F.Supp. 1024, 1034 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (denying compensatory, exemplary, and punitive relief where plaintiff alleged violations of 914.22 and 914.23 because "[n]either statute provides for an award of compensatory damages" and "the state attorney is the party authorized to request [equitable] relief on behalf of the witnesses"). As Kriz is not the state attorney, he cannot bring an action for violations of 914.22 and 914.23 of the Florida Statutes absent some civil enforcement mechanism, like RICO.
    PAGE 6

  5. Keppel v. Nocco

    8:20-cv-3003-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla. Sep. 24, 2021)
    Keppel alleges that the Defendants "engaged in conduct in violation of... Fla. Stat. §[§] 914.22 and 914.23, relating to tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant, and retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant." (Doc. 15 at ¶ 40.) Section 914.22 of the Florida Statutes proscribes tampering with a witness or victim and section 914.23 proscribes retaliating against a witness or victim. Because Keppel fails to allege any use of intimidation, threats, bribery, or any official proceeding, he fails to allege a violation of sections 914.22 and 914.23 of the Florida Statutes.
    PAGE 22

  6. R.T. v. State

    34 So. 3d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
    The State contends that R.T. was not charged under the correct subsection of section 914.23, and that the evidence supports a violation of section 914.23(2). Thus, the State requests that if we reverse the orders under review, that we do so without prejudice to allow the State to file an amended charging document charging R.T. under section 914.23(2). The State argues that because R.T. was not charged under section 914.23(2), and our reversal is not based on the sufficiency of the evidence, double jeopardy does not bar a successive prosecution. We decline to rule on the propriety of a successive prosecution because, as that issue has not materialized, to do so prior to the initiation of such a prosecution would in essence constitute an advisory opinion. See State v. Schebel, 723 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1999); M.Z. v. State, 747 So.2d 978. 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
    PAGE 143

  7. Gibson v. Nocco

    8:20-cv-2992-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla. Sep. 3, 2021)
    Section 914.22 of the Florida Statutes proscribes tampering with a witness or victim and section 914.23 proscribes retaliating against a witness or victim. Because Gibson fails to allege any official investigation or proceeding that he attended or testified in or would testify in, he fails to sufficiently plead either section 914.22 or 914.23.
    PAGE 23

  8. C.S. v. State

    869 So. 2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
    C.S. contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal to the charge of retaliating against a witness in violation of section 914.23, Florida Statutes. A trial court must not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless there is no view of the evidence which a jury might consider to be favorable to the state that can be sustained under law. Holland v. State, 773 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 2000). Section 914.23, Florida Statutes, provides in part:

  9. Molina v. Watkins

    824 So. 2d 959 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    According to the operative pleadings, Molina filed suit against Watkins for tortious interference and defamation. Watkins filed a twelve count countersuit against Molina individually and against his company, FCA, for: (1) violation of Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act; (2) common law fraud; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) civil remedies for criminal practices act (witness tampering in violation of sections 914.22— 914.23); (5) civil remedies for criminal practices act (perjury in violation of chapter 837); (6) racketeering (securities fraud in violation of chapter 517); (7) malicious prosecution; (8) abuse of process; (9) defamation; (10) civil forfeiture and other injunctive relief; (11) injunctive relief to protect against racketeering (witness tampering in violation of sections 914.22— 914.23); and (12) civil theft. All parties demanded a jury trial on all counts.
    PAGE 961

  10. Donaldson v. State

    1 So. 3d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
    Because the elements of section 914.23, Florida Statutes, do not necessarily require the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual, the retaliating against a witness conviction does not fall within section 775.082(9)(a)1. o, Florida Statutes. Consequently, the trial court erred by sentencing Appellant under the PRR statute.
    PAGE 414