JOHNSTONE v. STATE (2023)

All motions for rehearing en banc, rehearing by the panel, written opinion on an unwritten topic, clarification, and certification of questions of great public importance are denied.

I respectfully dissent from the majority's denial of the defendant's motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. I would grant the motions based on the intra-district and inter-district conflict in the decisional law interpreting the stalking statute previously discussed in my dissenting opinion in this case.

Moreover, because I believe the decisional law interpreting the stalking statute needs clarification in terms of how it can, or even should, be applied in circumstances such as those that were presented in this case, I would grant the defendant's motion for certification to the supreme court of the following two questions of great public importance:

1. DOES AN ACTION SERVE “NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 784.048(1)(A), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHEN THE ACTION IS NOT ENTIRELY BEREFT OF A VALID PURPOSE?

2. DOES AN ACTION CAUSE “SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 784.048(1)(A), FLORIDA STATUTES, IF A REASONABLE OBSERVER WOULD NOT SUFFER SIGNIFICANTLY GREAT SUFFERING, DANGER, OR DESPERATE NEED AS A RESULT OF THE ACTION?

* * *

Per Curiam.

Conner and Forst, JJ., concur. Artau, J., dissents from denial of the rehearing motions with an opinion.