GEORGE FIELDS, 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.
George Fields appeals his convictions for aggravated assault, resisting arrest with violence, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and burglary. The appellate court affirms, holding that a jury instruction that arresting a person on outstanding warrants constitutes lawful execution of a legal duty was proper and not reversible error.
The jury instruction was proper and did not constitute reversible error. When an officer is attempting to arrest a suspect on an outstanding warrant, the officer has no discretion in making the arrest, and the instruction that such arrest constitutes lawful execution of a legal duty is appropriate, distinguishable from cases involving arrests for just-committed offenses where probable cause is a jury question.
[1] An instruction that arresting a person on outstanding warrants constitutes the lawful execution of a legal duty is not an improper directed verdict on the element of lawf…
[2] An officer attempting to arrest a suspect on an outstanding warrant is lawfully executing a legal duty, unlike an officer attempting to arrest a suspect for a just-commit…
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“arresting a person on warrants constitutes the lawful execution of a legal duty”
The jury instruction at issue that Fields challenged as error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDetective Kirk, on patrol in an unmarked vehicle and aware of outstanding warrants against Fields, received a tip that Fields was in a Mercury Cougar.…
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 Resisting Arrest With Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George Fields appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault, resisting arrest with violence, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and burglary. Only one of the points raised by appellant warrants discussion.
The events that led to charges against Fields began when Detective Kirk, who was on patrol in an unmarked vehicle, and who knew there were outstanding warrants against appellant, received a tip that appellant was in a Mercury Cougar with another man. Kirk began following the Cougar, without activating flashing lights or siren, and observed a lot of movement in the car. The Cougar then suddenly turned into a driveway and stopped. When Kirk pulled in behind, the driver and appellant got out of the Cougar, pointed guns at Kirk and another officer, then fled. A chase ensued, and the suspects were apprehended while trying to hide in the house of witness Roy Smith’s mother (the burglary).
As to the resisting charge, appellant contends, inter alia, that the trial court committed reversible error when it instructed the jury that “arresting a person on warrants constitutes the lawful execution of a legal duty.” He argues that this instruction is tantamount to a directed verdict for the state on this element, citing our decision in Dion v. State, 564 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
In our recent opinion in Stayer v. State, 590 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), however, Judge Warner, writing for the majority, distinguished cases where an officer is attempting to arrest a suspect on a warrant from the Dion situation. Dion involved the question of whether an officer, attempting to make an arrest for a just-committed offense, was lawfully executing a legal duty. This is clearly a jury question, as it goes to whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. Here Detective Kirk had no discretion in arresting Fields on the outstanding warrant. McCray v. State, 496 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). As we held in Stayer, there was no error in the trial court’s instruction given here.
The remainder of appellant’s points are without merit, and accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences imposed.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willingham v. The City OF Orlando, 929 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…e, 914 So. 2d 1015, 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (officers are not expected to possess a lawyer’s understanding of the nuances of Fourth Amendment law and are not permitted to second guess the validity of a facially sufficient warrant); Fields v. State, 591 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (detective had no discretion in arresting Fields on an outstanding warrant); Stayer (same); Johnson v. Heinrich, 543 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Indeed, many courts have held that so long as a warrant is valid on its face…
-
Stone v. State, 620 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…e was contesting the lawfulness of the investigation. Nor did defendant raise the issue of the lawfulness of the investigation at trial. Analogous situations were presented in Stayer v. State, 590 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Fields v. State, 591 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the police officers were carrying out arrests pursuant to warrants. In those cases the defendants contested instructions to the effect that the officers were lawfully executing a legal duty, and this court affirmed beca…
Authorities Cited
- Dion v. State, 564 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Vetus McCRAY v. State, 496 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Stayer v. State, 590 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)