Title: State v. Gale Distributors, Inc.

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

349 So. 2d 150 (1977)
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
GALE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellee.
No. 49297.

Supreme Court of Florida.
March 24, 1977.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1977.
*151 Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Harry M. Hipler and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Leo Greenfield, Law Offices of Leo Greenfield, Miami, for appellee.
KARL, Justice.
We have for review by direct appeal the order of the County Court in and for Broward County dismissing the information against appellee and finding Section 543.041(2), Florida Statutes, unconstitutionally vague and violative of the prohibition against ex post facto legislation, thereby vesting jurisdiction in this court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
Appellee was charged by amended information with five counts of sale of sound on tape without the owner's consent, in violation of Section 543.041(2)(b), in that he did knowingly and willfully and without the consent of the owner, RCA Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, sell sounds recorded on tapes, the titles of which are expressly designated in the information, the appellee well knowing that said sounds had been transferred without the consent of *152 said owner. Appellee moved to dismiss the information and alleged, inter alia, that Section 543.041(2) is invalid and unconstitutional as violative of the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution in that it directly conflicts with the federal copyright laws.
In his order dismissing the information, the trial judge set out the State's concessions in the cause relative to application of the Supremacy Clause as follows:
The trial judge then found Section 543.041(2), Florida Statutes, unconstitutionally vague and indefinite, in that the act does not make it clear whether all the elements of subsection (2)(a) must be proven to sustain a conviction under subsection (2)(b), and unconstitutional and void as ex post facto legislation since, he determined, it was the intent of the statute to prohibit sales of sounds transferred before or after October 1, 1971, the effective date of said section.
Section 543.041(2), Florida Statutes, provides:
Initially, we find that Section 543.041, when applied to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, the effective date of Public Law 92-140, an act amending Title 17 of the United States Code, does not conflict with Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution of the United States, the "Copyright Clause," and federal statutes enacted thereunder.
Public Law 92-140, granting federal copyright protection to sound recordings, contains an express provision to the effect that:
Considering the constitutionality vel non of a California "tape piracy" statute (insofar as it applies to recordings fixed prior to the effective date of Public Law 92-140), similar to the Florida statute in question, against the challenge that it conflicted with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, and the federal copyright laws, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Goldstein v. California, *153 412 U.S. 546, 93 S. Ct. 2303, 37 L. Ed. 2d 163 (1973), concluded:
Therein, the Supreme Court explained:
Since we find no violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States so long as the act is construed to apply to recordings "fixed" before February 15, 1972, we have for disposition the challenge of vagueness against the constitutionality vel non of Section 543.041(2)(b). This court is committed to the proposition that it has a duty, if reasonably possible and consistent with constitutional rights, to resolve all doubts as to the validity of a statute in favor of its constitutionality and to construe it so as not to conflict with the Constitution. Hancock v. Sapp, 225 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1969), Rich v. Ryals, 212 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1968). Furthermore, it is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that the entire statute under consideration must be considered in determining legislative intent, and effect must be given to every part of the section and every part of the statute as a whole. From a view of the whole law in pari materia, the Court will determine legislative intent. Florida Jai Alai, Inc. v. Lake Howell Water and Reclamation Dist., 274 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1973), Wilensky v. Fields, 267 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972), State v. Hayles, 240 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1970), In Re: Opinion to the Governor, 60 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1952), Heriot v. City of Pensacola, 108 Fla. 480, 146 So. 654 (1933).
First, we determine, from an analysis of the act in question, that it is clear that the Legislature intended to set out two separate offenses, that of transferring and that of selling. Secondly, reading the statute as a whole and giving effect to all of its provisions, for purposes of determining what articles are prohibited from being sold, subsection (b) incorporates by reference the elements of subsection (a). Subsection (b) provides that it is unlawful "to sell any such article with the knowledge that the sounds thereon have been so transferred without the consent of the owner." (Emphasis supplied.) "So transferred," in *154 subsection (2)(b), means that anybody found guilty under subsection (2)(b) must have knowledge of all the essential elements of the crime charged in subsection (2)(a) of Section 543.041, Florida Statutes. Although we do not agree with the trial court that Section 543.041(2)(b) is unconstitutionally vague, we do find that the following interpretation of the statute by the trial court specifying the elements necessary to be proven for a violation of said section is accurate:
Subsection (b) of the statute prohibits sale after October 1, 1971, of that article described in subsection (a), fixed before February 15, 1972, whether the sounds were transferred before or after October 1, 1971.
With the foregoing construction, we find that Section 543.041, Florida Statutes, is not unconstitutionally vague since it conveys a sufficiently definite warning to those subject to its provisions what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. Cf. Zachary v. State, 269 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1972), Brock v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 670, 154 So. 690 (Fla. 1934).
Finally, we conclude that the statutory provision in question does not constitute ex post facto legislation. A law is ex post facto when applied to offenses occurring before the law becomes effective. Wilson v. State, 288 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1974), Rhodes v. State, 283 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1973), Wilensky v. Fields, supra, Greene v. State, 238 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1970).[2]
Higginbotham v. State, 88 Fla. 26, 31, 101 So. 233, 235 (1924), Greene, et al. v. State, supra. The activity proscribed by subsection (b) is the sale of the certain described articles after October 1, 1971. The reference back to subsection (a) by subsection (b) for purposes of what constitutes the articles that are proscribed from being sold by subsection (b) is a reference to the description of those articles rather than the separately chargeable criminal activity of transferring.
Having concluded that Section 543.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes, is constitutional, we further find that the amended information charging violation of said section was insufficient to charge the offense intended since it does not contain the essential elements thereof as above described.
Accordingly, we hold that Section 543.041(2)(b) is constitutional, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
[1]  Public Law 93-573, amended Public Law 92-140, 85 Stat. 391, by striking "and before January 1, 1975."
[2]  Same as Greene v. State, 238 So. 2d 296.