REEVES
v.
STATE
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.
Appellant was convicted of resisting an officer without violence. He appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion in limine (seeking to exclude evidence about the use of multiple officers and other resources) and his motion for judgment of acquittal. The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in limine because the evidence was relevant to prove that Appellant fled and concealed himself and was not more prejudicial than probative. The motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied because the State presented sufficient evidence of all elements of the crime: the officer was lawfully executing his duty, and Appellant's flight obstructed or resisted the officer.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it admits evidence that is more prejudicial than probative.
[2] An order denying a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To convict a person of resisting an officer without violence, the State must prove that (1) the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty and (2) the defendant's actions obstructed, resisted, or opposed the officer in the performance of that legal duty.”
States the legal elements required to establish the crime of resisting an officer without violence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer in full uniform ordered Appellant to stop. The officer had probable cause to arrest Appellant. Instead of obeying the command, Appellant ra…
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 Relevance And Prejudice Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Before TURNER, WHITEHEAD, DAWSON
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT
Appellant seeks review of his conviction for resisting an officer without violence. He contends that the trial court committed error in denying his motion in limine and his motion for judgment of acquittal.
A trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Reeves v. State, 987 So. 2d 103, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Appellant sought to exclude evidence regarding the use of multiple officers, air support, and a canine to apprehend him. This evidence was relevant to prove a material fact at issue, namely that Appellant had fled and concealed himself from the officer who had ordered him to stop; it was not more prejudicial than probative. There was no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the motion in limine.
An order denying a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo. Where the State puts forth evidence to establish each element of the crime charged, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied. State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). To convict a person of resisting an officer without violence, the State must prove that (1) the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty and (2) the defendant's actions obstructed, resisted, or opposed the officer in the performance of that legal duty. G.T. v. State, 120 So. 3d 141, 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Where flight is the alleged act of resisting, there must be evidence that the defendant knew the officer was attempting to detain him. Robinson v. State, 667 So. 2d 384, 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The officer who attempted the arrest testified that he had probable cause to arrest. He also said that he was dressed in full uniform when he ordered Appellant to stop, and that Appellant did not obey the command but instead ran off. This testimony covered every element of resisting without violence and the motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment is AFFIRMED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this 5th day of February, 2014
_/S/___________________________ THOMAS W. TURNER Presiding Circuit Judge
WHITEHEAD and DAWSON, J.J., concur. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to Alyssa Salman, Assistant Public Defender , [email protected], 435 N Orange Avenue, Suite 400 Orlando, Florida 32801-1526 and to Austin Price, Assistant State Attorney, [email protected], 415 N. Orange Avenue, Suite. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673 this 6th day of February, 2014.
/S/___________________________ Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Robinson v. State, 667 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- G.T. v. State, 120 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- LaJeffery Reeves v. State, 987 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)