HomeMy WebLinkAbout1116 the Defendants was a nullity. The specific statute .under
which the Defendants were charged is Florida Statute 370.08
(5) which reads as follows:
"No person may throw or cause to be
thrown, into an of the waters of this state,
any dynam te, me, of er exp os ves or
discharge any firearms whatsoever for the
purpose of killing food fish therein. The
landing ashore or possession on the water
by any person of any food fish that has
been damaged by explosives or the landing
of headless jewfish or grouper, if the grouper
is taken for commercial use, is prima facie
evidence of violation of this section. Any
person violating any of the provisions of this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of
the first degree, punishable as provided in
F.S. ??5.082 or ??5.083." (Emphasis supplied).
This statute by its very wording limits its application to
offenses thereunder committed "within the waters of this
state", i.e, waters lying within three (3) miles of the coast
line. This statute is penal in nature and therefore must be
strictly construed. The Court is not unmindful of Florida
Statute 370.22; which statute, the state asserts, would make
offenses under Florida Statute 3?0.08(5) punishable whether
committed within or without the 3 mile territorial limits.
Florida Statute 370.22 is a statute of venue and not one of
general jurisdiction and is applicable only to those portions
~ of Chapter 370 in which the particular penal statute being
I considered specifically provides that it is applicable to
p territory within or without the waters of this State, such
' as Florida Statute 370.15(2)(a). It was clearly the legislative
intent to limit applicability of Florida Statute 370.08(5) to
those portions of the waters lying within 3 miles of the coast
line of the State of Florida.
The State of Florida, nor its agents, had any right
or authority to arrest or try the Defendants under Florida
Statute 370.08(5) due to lack of jurisdict-ion over their persons
and of the offenses for which they were convicted. The Court
t
being otherwise fully advised, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Judgments of the
r
b~333 P,~11~.4
~ PY
0
4~