## Facts

- Richard Stalder was charged with misdemeanor battery after an incident at his home involving Herbert Cohen.
- Cohen went to Stalder’s home to retrieve earrings belonging to a friend, Denise Avard.
- In the encounter, Stalder allegedly directed anti-Jewish slurs at Cohen and made statements about Cohen’s Jewish ancestry.
- Stalder allegedly pushed Cohen; Avard witnessed the push.
- The State sought to reclassify the misdemeanor under Florida’s hate-crime reclassification statute, § 775.085 (1989), alleging the offense “evidenced prejudice” based on religion/ancestry.
- The trial court dismissed the enhancement, holding § 775.085 unconstitutional under free-speech protections.
- The district court certified the issue as one of great public importance, and the Florida Supreme Court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether § 775.085 is an unconstitutional content-based or viewpoint-based restriction on speech under the First Amendment and the Florida Constitution.
2. Whether § 775.085 is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, including the phrase “evidences prejudice.”

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court upheld § 775.085 as constitutional.
- The court quashed the trial court’s dismissal of the enhancement and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court ruled the statute enhances punishment for criminal conduct motivated by bias and does not criminalize protected expression.

## Legal Principles

- A penalty-enhancement scheme triggered by proof that a defendant’s criminal offense was motivated by prejudice may be constitutional because it punishes conduct, not abstract beliefs or viewpoints.
- Biased statements may be admitted as evidence of motive and intent when tied to the commission of an independently unlawful act.
- The First Amendment does not bar consideration of motive at sentencing or in offense reclassification when the law targets criminal conduct and uses speech only as evidentiary proof of bias motivation.
- A statute requiring a predicate criminal offense and a demonstrated connection between prejudice and the offense can satisfy vagueness standards; “evidences prejudice” is sufficiently definite when limited to prejudice manifested in the offense.
- A bias-motivation enhancement is not overbroad where its application is confined to criminal acts and does not reach a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its legitimate scope.

## Conclusion

Florida’s hate-crime reclassification statute was sustained because it operates as an enhancement for bias-motivated criminal conduct and permits use of biased speech only to prove motive, rather than penalizing protected expression itself.


State v. Stalder, 630 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1994)