MIGUEL DOPAZO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendant's kidnapping conviction under Florida Statute § 787.01(1)(a)3 for intent to terrorize was affirmed where evidence showed he threatened the victim with death while wielding knives and forced her away from an airline counter.
Evidence that the defendant threatened the victim with death, brandished knives, and forced the victim to walk away from an airline counter was sufficient to support a kidnapping conviction under § 787.01(1)(a)3 for intent to terrorize.
[1] Where a defendant is charged with kidnapping under multiple intent provisions without specification, a conviction may be sustained if evidence supports any one of the cha…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“walk over, otherwise you are going to die" and "this man is going to die, this man has to die”
Threats uttered by defendant while wielding knives and forcing victim away from airline counter
Defendant Dopazo was charged with kidnapping with intent to inflict bodily harm or terrorize the victim. He uttered threats of death, displayed knives…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sufficiency Of Evidence For Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Where, as in the present case, the defendant was charged with kidnapping with intent to “inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim,” see § 787.01(l)(a)3, evidence that the defendant uttered the words, “walk over, otherwise you are going to die,” and, with knife in hand, forced the victim to walk away from an airline counter, and that the defendant, when a struggle ensued after he and the victim had proceeded some twenty feet from the counter, brandished another knife and yelled, “this man is going to die, this man has to die,” was sufficient to support a conviction of the offense charged. We need not decide the merits of the appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of kidnapping with intent to “commit or facilitate commission of any felony” under Section 787.01(l)(a)2, see Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1983), since the State, without objection or request for more particular specification, charged Dopazo with kidnapping in violation of Sections 787.01(1)(a)2 and 3, cf. Mills v. State, 407 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (where State charged defendant with kidnapping with the single intent to hold the victim for ransom and reward, that intent and no other must be proved to support the charge), and the jury, correctly instructed with respect to Section 787.01(1) (a)3, found the defendant guilty.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- Mills v. State, 407 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)