Opinion ID: 1847714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: similar federal statute

Text: The United States Supreme Court has reached a result similar to that reached in Pierce and consistent with our opinions in Grappin and Watts, in construing the federal statutory equivalent to the statute in this case, 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 (Supp.1998) (formerly 18 U.S.C. § 254 (1946) (assault or interference with a federal officer)). In Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 79 S.Ct. 209, 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958), the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault upon federal officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 254 (1940) when he fired a shotgun at two officers while they were seated in their automobile. Similar to the statute at issue in the instant case, section 254 provided: `Whoever shall forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any person ... [if he is a federal officer designated in § 253] while engaged in the performance of his official duties, or shall assault him on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be ... imprisoned not more than three years.....' 358 U.S. at 171 n. 1, 79 S.Ct. 209 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 254 (1940)) (emphasis supplied). In concluding that only one conviction under section 254 was permitted, the Court reasoned that to permit as many offenses as there are federal officers affected would produce incongruous results because the cumulative punishment imposed would be disproportionate to the actual crime committed. 358 U.S. at 177, 79 S.Ct. 209. In analyzing the intent of the statute, the Court found it susceptible to two equally plausible constructions with regard to the purpose the statute was intended to achieve: preventing hindrance of the government and protection of individual officers. Id. at 173, 79 S.Ct. 209. In support of the view that the statute's primary purpose was to prevent the hindrance of government duty, and not to prevent assault upon federal officers, the court stated: [6] [Section] 254 makes it unlawful not only to assault federal officers engaged on official duty but also forcibly to resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere with such officers. Clearly one may resist, oppose, or impede the officers or interfere with the performance of their duties without placing them in personal danger. Such a congressional aim would, of course, be served by considering the act of hindrance as the unit of prosecution without regard to the number of federal officers affected by the act. For example, the locking of the door of a building to prevent the entry of officers intending to arrest a person within would be an act of hindrance denounced by the statute. We cannot find clearly from the statute, even when read in the light of its legislative history, that the Congress intended that the person locking the door might commit as many crimes as there are officers denied entry. And if we cannot find this meaning in the supposed case, we cannot find that Congress intended that a single act of assault affecting two officers constitutes two offenses under the statute. Id. at 176, 79 S.Ct. 209. Because the meaning of the statute could not be discerned from the wording of the statute or its legislative history, the Court construed the statute in favor of the accused individual: (W)hen choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite. We should not derive criminal outlawry from some ambiguous implication. United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221-222, 73 S.Ct. 227, 97 L.Ed. 260. And in Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 83, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905, the Court expressed this policy as follows: When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. This policy of lenity means that the Court will not interpret a federal criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what Congress intended. Id. at 177-78, 79 S.Ct. 209 (citations omitted). Other courts have similarly found that the use of the plural adjective any in connection with a singular noun or pronoun (i.e., officer, firearm, etc.) typically renders the meaning of a statute ambiguous. See United States v. Coiro, 922 F.2d 1008, 1014 (2d Cir.1991); Kinsley, 518 F.2d at 667-68; United States v. Deaton, 468 F.2d 541, 546 (5th Cir.1972). This Court's prior holdings in Grappin and Watts and the First District's holding in Pierce are consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Ladner and the federal circuit decisions cited above. Here, as in those cases, the use of the phrase any officer in section 843.01 renders the statute in question ambiguous. Indeed, chapter 843 is entitled obstructing justice which, as the Supreme Court concluded in Ladner, indicates a concern over the obstruction of justice by resisting arrest and not just the physical protection of law enforcement officers. [7] Indeed, section 843.01 specifically focuses on someone who resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer in the execution of any legal duty. At the very least, under the analysis in the cases set out above, the language and purpose of the statute is ambiguous and susceptible to different interpretations. And, of course, both this Court and the legislature have mandated that criminal statutes be strictly construed most favorably to the accused. See § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla.1991); State ex rel. Lee v. Buchanan, 191 So.2d 33, 36 (Fla.1966). Accordingly, absent a clearer statement of legislative intent to the contrary, this Court must apply the same analysis as we did in Watts, and as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Ladner. As noted above, the Ladner Court concluded that allowing as many charges as there were officers threatened or resisted in a single incident could produce absurd results. Indeed, the petitioner has similarly warned of the absurd consequences that potentially could flow from a contrary construction of the statute here: [D]efining the unit of prosecution by the number of officers involved in executing the legal duty would lead to an absurd result. Imagine an armed individual waiving his gun in the direction of the 100 officers unsuccessfully attempting to induce his surrender. Or imagine the motorist who continues driving despite an order to pull-over, resulting in a chase involving 100 squad cars, each occupied by two officers. Is it reasonable to believe that the legislature contemplated the single acts of resistance to constitute 100 counts of resisting an officer with violence and 200 counts of resisting an officer without violence? Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits at 8 n. 3. We note that if multiple prosecutions were allowed, a defendant could be prosecuted for numerous other charges such as aggravated assault and aggravated battery upon a police officer as was Wallace here, in addition to an endless number of counts of resisting simply depending upon the number of officers present. We do not believe the legislature intended such consequences. While the defendant may have committed more than one offense in his altercation with the officers, including possibly multiple assaults or batteries, or both, on law enforcement officers as were separately charged here, we conclude that his continuous resistance to the ongoing attempt to effect his arrest constitutes a single instance of obstruction under section 843.01. Of course, our opinion does not affect Wallace's convictions for the other offenses arising out of the same altercation. Accordingly, we quash Wallace and approve Pierce. It is so ordered. SHAW, KOGAN, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. HARDING, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which OVERTON and WELLS, JJ., concur. HARDING, C.J., dissenting. I dissent because I conclude that the statute, read as a whole, reveals clear legislative intent that the allowable unit of prosecution is each officer resisted. The statute reads: 843.01. Resisting officer with violence to his person. Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; parole and probation supervisor; county probation officer; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree.... While simple application of the a/any test set out in Grappin and Watts, without a complete reading of the statute, may suggest that this section is ambiguous as to the allowable unit of prosecution, a full and plain reading of the statute shows that it clearly prohibits violently resisting the officer, rather than the arrest. The phrase any officer must be read with the subsequent singular reference to the person of such officer. Because the statute read as a whole is unambiguous, I would hold that the allowable unit of prosecution under section 843.01 is each individual officer resisted with violence and that the statute permits multiple charges and convictions when a suspect resists multiple officers in an attempt to effect a single arrest. Accordingly, I would approve the decision below and disapprove Pierce v. State, 681 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). OVERTON and WELLS, JJ., concur.