## Facts

- A Polk County deputy stopped Robert Edwin Maddox for an improper lane change.
- Maddox said he lacked his driver’s license and proof of insurance and identified himself as “Nathaniel Lewis Maddox,” with a stated birth date.
- The deputy issued two traffic citations in the name “Nathaniel Lewis Maddox” (improper lane change; failure to produce proof of insurance).
- After initially hesitating, Maddox signed the citations as “Nathaniel” after being told refusal to sign was a criminal offense.
- A second deputy arrived; the vehicle owner (front passenger) consented to a vehicle search.
- The search produced an identification card showing the driver was Robert Edwin Maddox; a records check revealed his license was suspended.
- The deputy retained the original citations issued to “Nathaniel” and issued a new citation to Robert E. Maddox for driving with a suspended license.
- Maddox was charged with two counts of forgery (signing “Nathaniel” on the citations) and two counts of uttering a forged instrument (presenting the signed citations).

## Issues

1. Whether § 316.650(9), Florida Statutes (2001), which states that a traffic citation “shall not be admissible evidence in any trial,” barred admission of the citations in a prosecution for forgery and uttering when the citations themselves were the alleged forged instruments.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed Maddox’s convictions and sentences.
- The court held that § 316.650(9) did not bar admission of the traffic citations in this forgery/uttering prosecution.
- The court interpreted the statute as protecting the person to whom a citation is issued from having the citation used as evidence against that person in proceedings concerning the underlying traffic infraction.
- Because the citations were offered as the alleged forged documents (not to prove the underlying traffic infractions against the cited person), the statutory exclusion did not apply.
- The court certified conflict with a contrary interpretation adopted by another district.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory language barring admission of traffic citations must be construed in context and consistent with the statute’s purpose within the uniform traffic-citation scheme.
- Section 316.650(9)’s inadmissibility rule is directed at preventing the citation form from being used as substantive evidence against the cited person on the underlying traffic infraction.
- A traffic citation may be admitted in a separate criminal prosecution when it constitutes the physical instrumentality of the charged offense (e.g., the forged document), rather than evidence offered to prove the traffic infraction.
- Broad “any trial” phrasing may yield to a narrower construction when necessary to effectuate legislative purpose and avoid results inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

## Conclusion

The court upheld forgery and uttering convictions based on signed traffic citations, ruling that Florida’s traffic-citation inadmissibility statute does not prevent admission of citations when they are introduced as the alleged forged instruments in a separate criminal case rather than as proof of the underlying traffic violations.


Maddox v. State, 862 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)