Opinion ID: 2489306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Third District's Misapplication of Faison

Text: While this Court has acknowledged in the past that the Faison test is not an easy one to apply, attributing the test's difficulty not to the test itself but rather to the diverse factual situations to which it must be applied, we have also cautioned against revising the Faison test because doing so would lead us to stray even further from the language of the statute. Berry, 668 So.2d at 970. Notwithstanding this Court's prior admonition, the State argues that the Third District's expansive interpretation and application of section 787.01(1)(a)2. and the Faison test, in particular, were proper. We disagree and conclude that the Third District misapplied our decision in Faison in two important aspects. We first conclude that the Third District's decision incorrectly conflates the language of section 787.01(1)(a)2. with the Faison test's three parts. Although it is difficult to refute the Third District's reasoning that Delgado's abandonment of the child left her in a precarious state, and we too find this fact troubling, the court's rationale does not explain how Delgado's decision to leave the scene established the statutory elements of kidnapping with the intent to facilitate auto theft. The crux of the district court's decision relies on an infe[rence] from the evidence that Delgado became aware that the child was confined in the truck in the course of removing the radio, taking the owner's tools, and ransacking the interior of the vehicle in an obvious search for other valuables. Delgado, 19 So.3d at 1057. After Delgado became aware of the child's presence, the district court explained, the child's  continued confinement ... was essential to [his] attempt to avoid apprehension for the theft of the vehicle and its contents, and thus supported a kidnapping conviction. Id. (emphasis added). However, under section 787.01(1)(a)2., a defendant's awareness of the victim must arise before or during the commission of the underlying felonyauto theft in this caseand not after the fact, as the Third District presumes took place. Accordingly, a victim's continued confinement when the defendant is unaware of the initial confinement during the commission of the underlying felony does not factor into this analysis. Here, the district court's decision erroneously equates both avoiding detection and apprehension and extend[ing] the time of confinementfacts that are relevant to establishing the Faison testwith satisfying the essential elements required under the kidnapping statute, including that such actions facilitate[d] [Delgado's] commission of the [auto] theft. Id. 1057-58, 1057 n. 3. Yet, as explained above, whether the evidence presented at trial satisfies the statutory elements and whether it satisfies the three parts of Faison are separate and distinct inquiries to be conducted independent of one another. The Third District's decision disregards satisfying the language of the statute as an inquiry separate from Faison. and in doing so, misapplies the principles we announced in that decision. Under the Third District's decision, the State would be able to avoid its burden to satisfy the statutory requirements set forth in section 787.01(1)(a)2. so long as it can establish that all three parts of the Faison test have been met. However, such an expansive reading of the Faison decision would actually exacerbate the very problem this Court in Faison sought to avoid: expanding the class of defendants who could be subject to a kidnapping conviction for alleged confinement subsumed in another criminal act. Even if Delgado's acts did, in fact, satisfy all three Faison requirements, the Third District erred by not first determining whether Delgado had the requisite knowledge of the victim before or during his execution of the auto theft as required by the statute. Second, we conclude that the Third District's reliance on Taylor by adopting its special-danger-to-children analysis was misplaced because that decision is materially distinguishable from this case in terms of both the operative facts and the applicable statutes at issue. The defendant in Taylor was convicted of hijacking under Indiana's kidnapping statute [6] after driving off in a car in which two children, ages seven and four, were already restrained in car seats. Taylor, 879 N.E.2d at 1201-02. On appeal, the Indiana appellate court affirmed Taylor's hijacking conviction, first explaining that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that Taylor knew there were children in the car as he approached it or almost immediately after he entered it because the evidence showed that it was a sunny day, the windows of the vehicle were not tinted, the parents yelled loudly and repeatedly for their children as Taylor was pulling out of the driveway, and Taylor expressly acknowledged that he did not abandon the car the instant he discovered it was occupied. Id. at 1202. Taylor argued that his hijacking conviction could not stand because there was no evidence that he used or threatened to use force as required by the Indiana statute. Id. Rejecting Taylor's contention, the appellate court concluded that Taylor's actions fell squarely in line with the risk the Legislature sought to prevent under the statutory provision at issue, reasoning as follows: When the victims are children, a defendant may need only minimal force to accomplish a hijacking. That the victims are relatively helpless does not absolve the defendant of liability for kidnapping. Taylor took advantage of the fact the children were restrained in car seats and locked in the car. He took further steps to prevent their escape by driving at a high rate of speed. Id. at 1203. The court's holding hinged on the fact that Taylor knew the children were in the car and were restrained in car seats. Id. at 1202. In contrast to Taylor, where the defendant conceded that he did not abandon the car the moment he discovered that it was occupied, in this case, Delgado does not make a similar concession and actually asserts that he was unaware of the child's presence. Further, Taylor's special danger analysis was not used to interpret a kidnapping provision similar to section 787.01(1)(a)2., under which a separate felony is used to support a kidnapping conviction; rather, the Indiana court's assessment of special harm focused on whether Taylor applied the requisite level of force amounting to one, distinct felony. Unlike what the Third District intimates in its decision, Taylor did not make a connection between the level of force needed to sustain a hijacking conviction standing alone and the type of confinement that is slight, inconsequential, and merely incidental to another felony for the purposes of establishing the first part of the Faison test. Moreover, the principle from Taylor quoted by the Third Districtthat if you are going to steal or commandeer a vehicle, let the people in it go and don't force people into it against their willcannot logically apply when the defendant lacks knowledge of the victim. Delgado, 19 So.3d at 1058 (quoting Taylor, 879 N.E.2d at 1203). And although we recognize that the offense charged in Taylor may be similar to Florida's provision on carjacking, [7] Delgado was not charged with carjacking, it was not the underlying felony used to support his kidnapping conviction, and this Court has never extended the Faison test to that particular statute. Therefore, Delgado's reliance on Taylor as support for its holding was misplaced. Significantly, under the Third District's rationale, there was nothing Delgado could do to avoid a kidnapping conviction once he discovered the child's presence after his completion of the auto theft. The Third District even suggests imposing an additional obligation upon the defendant to submit an anonymous tip of some kind or voluntarily surrender. Delgado, 19 So.3d at 1057. This logic would modify the statutory elements of Florida's kidnapping provision, which we decline to do. See Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 810 (Fla. 2008) (The Legislature did not include such language, and we cannot add it on our own.).