Case ID: so2d_791/html/1084-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEWIS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Randolph HANSBROUGH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC00-1322.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 12, 2001.
    Robert A. Ader and Elizabeth B. Hitt of the Law Offices of Robert Ader, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, Bureau Chief, and Frank J. In-grassia, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondent.
   LEWIS, J.

We have for review Hansbrough v. State, 757 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), wherein the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following questions as being of great public importance:

WHETHER SECTION 817.234(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE INSURER.
and, if not
WHETHER THE STATUTE ADVANCES THE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN PREVENTING INSURANCE FRAUD AND IS NOT MORE EXTENSIVE THAN IS NECESSARY TO SERVE THAT INTEREST.

Id. at 1283. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

These questions were both answered in the negative in our recent opinion in State v. Bradford, 787 So.2d 811, 822 (Fla.2001). Consistent with Bradford, the district court’s decision is quashed and the case is remanded with directions that Hans-brough’s conviction be reversed.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.