Opinion ID: 1697438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does the Statute Require an Agreement?

Text: The second, related issue we must consider is whether the unlawful compensation statute requires evidence of an agreement or meeting of the minds. The district court held it did. Castillo, 835 So.2d at 309. It concluded that without direct evidence that Officer Castillo actually stated that he would arrest A.S. if she did not have sex with him, there was only evidence that A.S. believed this to be true. Id. The Fourth District in Gerren also required proof of a meeting of the minds. Although the Fourth District did not require that an agreement be explicit, it did require proof at least of an implicit agreement. See 604 So.2d at 517, 520-21. [5] We respectfully disagree. On its face, the statute does not require an agreement. In fact, it criminalizes the mere solicitation of a benefit not authorized by law, regardless of whether the solicited party accepts the offer. The statute expressly makes it unlawful for a public servant corruptly to request, solicit, or accept any pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law. Such language implies that, although evidence of an agreement is sufficient to prove a violation  the statute also prohibits agreeing to accept a benefit  it is not required. Section 838.016(1) further requires that the public servant must request, solicit, accept, or agree to accept the unlawful benefit corruptly, which means with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining or compensating or receiving compensation for any benefit resulting from some act or omission of a public servant which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his or her public duties. § 838.014(6), Fla. Stat. The statute thus focuses on the official's intent, not on an agreement. [6] The statute does not require that the person from whom the public official requests or accepts a benefit agree to  or even understand  the exchange. Other states with similarly phrased bribery statutes have concluded that proof of an agreement is not required to establish violation of the statute. In Commonwealth v. Schauffler, 397 Pa.Super. 310, 580 A.2d 314 (1990), for example, the statute in question provided that a person is guilty of bribery, a felony of the third degree, if he offers, confers or agrees to confer upon another, or solicits, accepts or agrees to accept from another ... any benefit as consideration for a violation of a known legal duty as public servant or party official. 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 4701(a)(3) (West 1983). The statute resembles Florida's because it, too, focuses on the wrongdoer's intent. The Pennsylvania court relied on the commentary to section 240.1 of the Model Penal Code, from which its statute was derived, and cited the commentary as follows: [I]t is sufficient if the actor believes that he has agreed to confer or agreed to accept a benefit for the proscribed purpose, regardless of whether the other party actually accepts the bargain in any contract sense. ... The evils of bribery are fully manifested by the actor who believes that he is conferring a benefit in exchange for official action, no matter how the recipient views the transaction.... Each defendant should be judged by what he thought he was doing and what he meant to do, not by how his actions were received by the other party. 580 A.2d at 317-18 (quoting Model Penal Code § 240.1 cmt. 4.(b)-(c) (1980)) (emphasis added); see also State v. Martin, 95 Or.App. 170, 769 P.2d 203, 205 n. 1 (1989) (citing the state's criminal code commentary on its bribe-giving statute, which explained that the mens rea requirement of with the intent was meant to avoid the necessity of proving a `meeting of the minds' because subjective wrongful intent of the bribe offeror is the gravamen of bribe giving). We agree with this reasoning and hold that section 838.016(1) does not require a specific agreement. Only corrupt intent must be shown. In requiring a meeting of the minds, the district court relied on our decision in State ex rel. Grady v. Coleman, 133 Fla. 400, 183 So. 25 (1938). In Grady, this Court discussed the legal sufficiency of an information to charge a crime under a predecessor unlawful compensation statute. [7] The Court described the violation of the statute as follows: The gravamen of the action as stated [by] Mr. Justice Ellis in [ Callaway v. State, 112 Fla. 599, 152 So. 429 (1938)], is the exacting by the officer of compensation or extortion practiced by demanding the sum required? If the money is demanded and there is a meeting of the minds on the part of the officer who is to be compensated or rewarded by his exaction or acceptance of the reward other than that allowed by law, and the party from whom it is exacted or accepted, then the statutes, supra [§§ 7486-7487, Comp. Gen. Laws (1927)], have been violated. 183 So. at 31. We do not read Grady as holding that proof of a meeting of the minds is required; only that it suffices. The Court in Grady stated only that if a mutuality of understanding is present along with other facts, the statute is violated. Moreover, Grady analyzed an earlier version of the statute, which prohibited only exacting or accepting remuneration. The current statute, section 838.016(1), prohibits requesting, soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept a benefit. Even assuming the statute at issue in Grady prohibited only a specific agreement, the prohibition has since been broadened. Thus, the statute only requires the State to prove the corrupt intent of the actor, which in this case is the police officer. We disapprove both Castillo and Gerren to the extent they require proof of a meeting of the minds to prove a violation of the statute.