RALPH PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
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 conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer was reversed and remanded for new trial because the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense to that specific intent crime, while convictions for simple battery and resisting arrest with violence were affirmed.
A defendant charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, a specific intent crime, is entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication when evidence supports it, even though simple battery is not a specific intent crime.
[1] Battery on a law enforcement officer is a specific intent crime to which voluntary intoxication is a valid defense, requiring a jury instruction when evidence of intoxica…
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 intelligenceDefendant was convicted of battery, battery on law enforcement officers, and resisting arrest with violence. Evidence indicated defendant might have b…
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 Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from his convictions and sentences for battery, battery on law enforcement officers and resisting arrest with violence.
Defendant’s first contention is that the trial court erred in refusing his request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense. Battery on a law enforcement officer is a specific intent crime to which intoxication would be a defense. There was evidence indicating that defendant might have been intoxicated. Therefore, defendant was entitled to the jury instruction. Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (decided after the trial court’s disposition of this case). Since defendant did not request the intoxication instruction for the charge of resisting arrest with violence, we need not address whether that charge alleged a specific intent crime. Battery is not a specific intent crime. See Evans; Linehan v. State, 442 So. 2d 244, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
We affirm as to defendant’s second contention. McCuiston v. State, 462 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Therefore, we affirm the convictions and sentences on the battery and resisting arrest with violence charges and reverse and remand for a new trial on the charges of battery on a law enforcement officer. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. State, 506 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…d to a one year concurrent sentence on the first degree misdemeanor conviction. On appeal, this court reversed the convictions on the two counts of battery of a law enforcement officer and remanded for a new trial on those charges. Parker v. State, 471 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). After we remanded, the state nolle prossed the two charges, and appellant then filed a motion to set aside his original sentence on the remaining charges. The motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, al…
-
Bush v. State, 543 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…rial court regarding the blood samples did not affect the fairness of Bush’s trial with respect to this charge. There was suffi- [*285] dent evidence upon which to base a finding of guilt, and that conviction is affirmed. See, e.g., Parker v. State, 471 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (error in denying jury instruction on intoxication affected only those charges to which intoxication would have been a defense); Craft v. State, 441 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (error in refusing to sever charge of possession of…
-
Cardwell v. State, 481 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…created a sufficient question for the jury as to appellant’s possible defense of intoxication to the requisite formation of specific intent. Any evidence of appellant’s intoxication entitled him to an appropriate jury instruction. Parker v. State, 471 So. 2d 1352 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). Even where the evidence of intoxication derives from the cross-examination of the state’s witness, appellant is entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of voluntary intoxication. Heathcoat v. State, 430 So. 2d 945 (Fla.2d D…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Linehan v. State, 442 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- McCUISTON v. State, 462 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)