William R. Crews, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Respondent — Pariente, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Pariente dissented from the majority's interpretation of the phrase "misconduct in office" in the statute extending the limitations period for certain offenses involving public personnel. She would have held that the phrase does not plainly encompass every public employee and that, because at least two reasonable interpretations exist, the rule of lenity requires adopting the narrower interpretation favoring the defendant. The dissent would therefore have answered the certified question in the negative.