GLEN DALE CARDWELL, 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.
Glen Dale Cardwell was convicted of resisting an officer with violence and aggravated assault. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the resisting conviction but reversed the aggravated assault conviction because the trial court improperly refused to instruct the jury on intoxication as a defense to this specific intent crime.
The trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on intoxication as a defense to aggravated assault. Any evidence of the defendant's intoxication, including evidence derived from cross-examination of the state's witnesses, entitles the defendant to an appropriate jury instruction on voluntary intoxication for specific intent crimes.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense to a specific intent crime when evidence of intoxication is presented at trial.
[2] Evidence of intoxication, even if elicited on cross-examination of a state's witness, is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In light of this evidence, the trial court committed reversible error in not issuing an instruction on intoxication. We believe that the testimony at trial of two of the apprehending officers created a sufficient question for the jury as to appellant's possible defense of intoxication to the requisite formation of specific intent.”
The court's holding that the evidence presented was sufficient to require a jury instruction on intoxication for the specific intent crime of aggravated assault.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCardwell was approached by three police officers who suspected him of burglarizing his ex-wife's residence. He resisted arrest, was thrown to the grou…
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 Specific Intent Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
[*973] HALL, Judge.
Glen Dale Cardwell appeals his conviction for resisting an officer with violence and aggravated assault. We affirm the judgment as to resisting an officer with violence but reverse appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault.
Appellant argues that the court improperly rejected his proposed jury instruction concerning the defense of intoxication against the charge of aggravated assault, which is a specific intent crime. State v. Shorette, 404 So. 2d 816 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). We agree.
Evidence presented at trial established that appellant was approached by three police officers who suspected him of burglarizing his ex-wife’s residence. On resisting their attempts to arrest him, appellant was physically thrown to the ground and an altercation between appellant and the officers ensued.
At trial appellant requested that the trial judge instruct the jury on intoxication as a defense to the charge of aggravated assault. The trial court declined. One of the apprehending officers testified that he detected an odor of alcohol while scuffling with appellant, while another of the officers stated on cross-examination that he believed appellant was intoxicated.
In light of this evidence, the trial court committed reversible error in not issuing an instruction on intoxication. We believe that the testimony at trial of two of the apprehending officers 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 DCA), aff'd, 442 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1983); Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981).
Accordingly, appellant’s judgment and sentence for aggravated assault are reversed and remanded for retrial.
RYDER, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calabrese v. State, 726 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…tary intoxication, which is a defense to the specific intent crimes of first-degree premeditated murder and robbery.1 A voluntary intoxication instruction generally should be given where there is evidence to support it. See, e.g., Cardwell v. State, 481 So. 2d 972, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (“Any evidence of appellant’s intoxication entitled him to an appropriate jury [*848] instruction.”). In this case, there was some evidence of drug consumption by Calabrese prior to the killings, as well as evidence of intoxi…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Heathcoat, 442 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1983)
- Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Shorette, 404 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Parker v. State, 471 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Renna v. City OF N. Lauderdale, 430 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Heathcoat v. State, 430 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)