Ned Carmer Thompson v. State of Florida , 153 So. 3d 996 ( 2015 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NED CARMER THOMPSON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D13-5148
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed January 15, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
Edward Philman, Judge.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Glen P. Gifford and Joanna Aurica Mauer,
Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ROBERTS, J.
The Appellant, Ned Carmer Thompson, appeals his judgment and sentence
for the following counts: (1) felony battery – domestic battery by strangulation; (2)
false imprisonment; (3) tampering with a witness, victim, or informant; (4) felony
battery – repeat offender; (5) tampering with a witness, victim, or informant; and (6)
perjury in an official proceeding. He raises five issues on appeal, only one of which
merits discussion. The Appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible
error when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to
present any evidence required for a conviction for witness tampering under count
three. The State concedes error, and we agree.
Under Florida law, tampering with a witness, victim, or informant occurs
when:
(1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or
threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading
conduct toward another person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to
another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to:
***
(e) Hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement
officer or judge of information relating to the commission or possible
commission of an offense or a violation of a condition of probation,
parole, or release pending a judicial proceeding . . . .
§ 914.22(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2013).
There is no evidence in the record establishing that the victim was attempting
2
to contact law enforcement during the time of the incident. As such, there was
insufficient evidence as to an essential element of the crime. See Longwell v. State,
123 So. 3d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Accordingly, the Appellant’s
conviction for witness tampering under count three must be REVERSED.
THOMAS and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
3