Opinion ID: 2304836
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Layering Issue

Text: The trial court also dismissed the portions of the stalking counts that relied on harassment, because it concluded that the government needed to prove a repeated course of conduct, and the government conceded that it was only presenting evidence that appellee engaged in one course of conduct. As a preliminary matter, we agree with the trial court that the phrase willfully, maliciously and repeatedly modifies both following and harassing. See Pallas v. Florida, 636 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1994) (interpreting similar language), aff'd, 654 So.2d 127 (Fla.1995); Culbreath, supra note 5, 667 So.2d at 159-60. [8] Therefore, one may be prosecuted for on more than one occasion ... repeatedly . . . harassing another person with the requisite intent. Harassing, in turn, is in part defined as engaging in a course of conduct . . . According to appellee, this combination of on more than one occasion, repeatedly, and course of conduct has created a layering problem which fails to define the quantum of behavior necessary to commit the crime. We are unpersuaded. This court has held that in examining statutory language, it is axiomatic that `[t]he words of the statute should be construed according to their ordinary sense and with the meaning commonly attributed to them.' Peoples Drug Stores, supra, 470 A.2d at 753 (quoting Davis v. United States, 397 A.2d 951, 956 (D.C.1979)). Therefore, we will look to the ordinary meaning of the terms and determine if they render the statute unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama recently dealt with a similar issue when confronted with the argument that Alabama's stalking statute was unconstitutionally vague because the terms repeatedly, series, and course of conduct were not defined. Randall, supra note 5, 669 So.2d at 226-27. The Alabama court looked to Words and Phrases to determine the commonly understood meanings of those words, and we will follow a similar approach. The phrase on more than one occasion requires that the acts described have occurred at two or more distinct times. The Alabama court found that the word repeatedly means more than once. Id. (citing 37 Words and Phrases 3). Course of conduct was defined by a New York court in its analysis of New York's stalking statute to mean a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. People v. Payton, 161 Misc.2d 170, 612 N.Y.S.2d 815, 817 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.1994). Each of these phrases has a slightly different meaning, and can easily be understood by a person of average intelligence. Under each theory, the perpetrator must commit the prohibited act on more than one occasion, which requires some time separation between the acts. The perpetrator also must follow or harass someone repeatedly, and therefore one act of following or harassment would not constitute stalking. If the perpetrator is being charged with harassment, the government must also show a continuity of purpose in that person's actions. We find that these terms are not meant to modify each other and create the type of layering argued by appellee. Instead, each term should be viewed as its own separate requirement as defined above. The Alabama court stated in Randall, supra, that we do not find merit in Randall's contention that a person cannot be convicted of stalking unless the person knew or should have known the number of times and the specific time period the person must follow or harass the victim in order to be guilty of the offense of stalking. 669 So.2d at 227. As a result of this interpretation the government is not required to prove more than one course of conduct. We agree with the government that the statute requires proof that a defendant engaged in the conduct on more than 1 occasion, that he or she acted repeatedly, and that this conduct was a course of conduct in that it showed a continuity of purpose.