Unlicensed practice conviction overturned for lack of evidence that work actually occurred

Credit: https://flic.kr/p/9Ek1k6

Credit: https://flic.kr/p/9Ek1k6

In March, a criminal conviction of an alleged unlicensed Florida contractor was overturned by a state appellate court because prosecutors failed to introduce any actual evidence detailing the work allegedly performed or the contract the accused was alleged to have entered into.

In March, a criminal conviction of an alleged unlicensed Florida contractor was overturned by a state appellate court because prosecutors failed to introduce any actual evidence detailing the work allegedly performed or the contract the accused was alleged to have entered into.

The non-licensee in the case, Christine Dubois, was convicted of contracting without a license for entering into a contract to install an electrical generator. She appealed, and the case went up to a state District Court, which overturned her conviction in a March 31 order because of a lack of cited evidence.

Under Florida law, a contractor is defined, among other things, as someone who alters or adds to a building, which Judge Joshua Mize, conducting the case, agreed could include the installment of an electrical generator if the installation involved affixing the generator to a building or altering a building in some way.

However, prosecutors had not introduced any evidence regarding the installation of the generator or Dubois’s methods, not even the actual contract allegedly entered into between Dubois and the client. Although the client had testified in court regarding the installation, he had never discussed any actual terms of the contract or what action Dubois took to complete the installation. Similarly, a police detective’s testimony also did not contain any actual statements that Dubois had contracted to install the generator or what work that entailed.

“In order to meet its burden at trial, the State was required to submit competent, substantial evidence that Dubois entered into a contract to construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, demolish, subtract from or improve a building or structure,” wrote Judge Mize. “The State failed to introduce any evidence whatsoever that Dubois entered into a contract to construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, demolish, subtract from or improve a building or structure.”