914.23
Retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
914.23 Retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant.—A person who knowingly engages in any conduct that causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for:
(1) The attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or for any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or
(2) Any 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 given by a person to a law enforcement officer;
or attempts to do so, is guilty of a criminal offense. If the conduct results in bodily injury, such person is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Otherwise, such person is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 15, ch. 84-363; s. 45, ch. 87-243.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: State v. Jones
State v. Jones (1994)
“§ 914.23, Fla. Stat. (1991) (emphasis added).”
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report No. 2012-04 (2013)
“9 [ATTEMPTED] RETALIATING AGAINST A [WITNESS] [VICTIM] [INFORMANT] § 914.23, Fla. Stat. To prove the crime of [Attempted] Retaliating Against a [Witness] [Victim] [Informant], the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Give as applicable.”
C.S. v. State (2004)
“contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal to the charge of retaliating against a witness in violation of section 914.23, Florida Statutes. A trial court must not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless there is no view of the…”
State v. Warsop (1997)
“1994) (interpreting Fla. Stat. § 914.23 (Supp.1991)); United States v.”
R.T. v. State (2010)
“was not charged under the correct subsection of section 914.23, and that the evidence supports a violation of section 914.”
Rooney v. State (1995)
“…concur. .§ 806.13, Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 810.02(1.) and (3), Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 806.01(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 914.23, Fla.Stat. (1991).”
Keppel v. Nocco (2021)
“11 witness, victim, or an informant under § 1513(e); (3) mail fraud under § 1341; (4) wire fraud under § 1343; (5) tampering with a witness, victim, or informant under section 914.”
RT v. State (2010)
“was not charged under the correct subsection of section 914.23, and that the evidence supports a violation of section 914.”
Donaldson v. State (2009)
“” § 914.23 Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added).”
Gibson v. Nocco (2021)
“22 or section 914.23 of the Florida Statutes. Section 914.”
Lape v. Nocco (2021)
“22 of the Florida Statutes proscribes tampering with a witness or victim and section 914.23 proscribes retaliating against a witness or victim.”
Pierre v. Department of Corrections (2024)
“Factual Background On November 26, 2012, Petitioner was charged by Amended Information in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial District in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, with (1) retaliating against a witness, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 914.23 ; (2) attempted armed…”
— 914.23(1) — 3 cases
C.S. v. State (2004)
“contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal to the charge of retaliating against a witness in violation of section 914.23, Florida Statutes. A trial court must not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless there is no view of the…”
R.T. v. State (2010)
“was not charged under the correct subsection of section 914.23, and that the evidence supports a violation of section 914.”
RT v. State (2010)
“was not charged under the correct subsection of section 914.23, and that the evidence supports a violation of section 914.”
— 914.23(2) — 3 cases
R.T. v. State (2010)
“was not charged under the correct subsection of section 914.23, and that the evidence supports a violation of section 914.”
RT v. State (2010)
“was not charged under the correct subsection of section 914.23, and that the evidence supports a violation of section 914.”
Cruz v. State (2003)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.