 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Duffy v. State3/21/1990
he legislature can achieve the same result with greater economy by merely increasing the penalty for the single underlying offense. Thus, before reaching the question of any possible constitutional violation, courts necessary must first determine what the legislature intended to punish and precisely how.
Carawan, 515 So.2d at 164. The court addressed three main rules of statutory construction for application:
The first is that absent a violation of constitutional right, specific, clear and precise statements of legislative intent control regarding intended penalties. * * *
The second rule is that, in the absence of any clearly discernible legislative intent, the court begins by using the test established in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), to assist in determining this intent. * * * Simply stated, the Blockburger test compares the elements of the crimes in question. * * *
The third rule is that courts must resolve all doubts in favor of lenity toward the accused.
Id. at 165. Lenity is described as "`a fundamental rule of statutory construction, i.e., that criminal statutes shall be construed strictly in favor of the person against whom a penalty is to be imposed.'" Id. at 166 (quoting Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1983)). The court then recognized:
At the outset, we conclude that the preeminence of legislative intent means that Blockburger necessarily is only the first step in the court's analysis. Although Blockburger creates a presumption as to the actual legislative intent, it is not a blind presumption that may be applied without regard to other relevant evidence of the true intent. It would be absurd indeed to apply Blockburger, which was meant to help determine legislative intent, in a way that actually defeats what reason and logic dictate to be the intent. As has been noted, an exclusive Blockburger analysis sometimes leads to a result contrary to common sense. * * *
We find that unreasonable results sometimes may be achieved by applying no rule of construction other than Blockburger to determine the intent behind a facially ambiguous penal statute. As our courts frequently have noted, the true intent may be discerned in the circumstances and documentation accompanying a law's enactment, it's evidence purpose, the particular evil it seeks to remedy, the fact that it seeks to protect a particular class or remedy a special problem, or other relevant factors. * * * Accordingly, after first applying the Blockburger test, the court then must consider the presumption so created in light of any relevant factors that may indicate a contrary legislative intent.
Carawan, 515 So.2d at 167 (footnote omitted). The court further notes "where there is a basis for concluding that the legislature intended a result contrary to that achieved by the Blockburger test, a conflict arises that requires resort to the third rule of construction applicable to this problem, the rule of lenity." Id. at 168. In this regard, Florida's lenity requirement constituted a rule of construction coequal to Blockburger with both provisions related in purpose since both provide guidelines for the construction of ambiguous statutes. After considering past precedent, the court then found that attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery address the same evil which was predicated upon one single underlying act. The case was remanded to vacate either the manslaughter or aggravated battery conviction. See likewise Meadows v. State, 534 So.2d 1233 (Fla.App. 1988) and State v. Smith, 245 Kan. 381, 781 P.2d 666 (1989), aggravated battery and first degree murder.
In F
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|