Tomlinson v. State
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a direct conflict among the district courts of appeal over what 'maliciously' means in Florida's extortion statute, section 836.05. The Court held that 'maliciously' means 'intentionally and without any lawful justification' (legal malice), not ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent toward the victim (actual malice), approving the Third DCA's decision in Tomlinson and disapproving the Fifth DCA's Calamia decision. The Court conducted an extensive historical and textual analysis of the term's common-law meaning and legislative history since the statute's 1868 enactment, and clarified that its prior decision in Carricarte did not hold otherwise because that statement was dicta.
Key facts
- Tomlinson was charged with extortion under Florida Statute section 836.05, which prohibits acts done 'maliciously,' but the district courts of appeal were split on whether 'maliciously' required proof of ill will and hatred toward the victim or merely intentional and unjustified conduct.
- The trial court instructed the jury that 'maliciously' means 'intentionally and without any lawful justification,' and Tomlinson was convicted; the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, but the Fifth District had previously adopted a different standard in another case.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision resolves a long-standing district split on the proper jury instruction for extortion prosecutions under section 836.05, definitively adopting the 'legal malice' (intentional, unjustified act) standard over… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.