GENE ARRISON, 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.
Gene Arrison was convicted of obstruction of justice by wearing a disguise under Florida Statutes Section 848.03, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that merely changing one's shirt does not constitute wearing a disguise in violation of the statute.
The mere act of changing one's shirt, absent other facts or circumstances, does not amount to wearing a disguise and does not violate Section 848.03, because it does not change one's overall general appearance and does not hide one's true identity.
[1] A conviction for obstruction of justice by a disguised person requires proof that the defendant changed their appearance to conceal their identity.
[2] The mere act of changing one's shirt, without further evidence of intent to conceal identity or alter general appearance, does not constitute wearing a disguise under Flo…
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“The mere act of changing one s shirt, absent other facts or circumstances, does not amount to wearing a disguise, and does not constitute a violation of Section 843.03, because it does not change one's overall general appearance and does not hide one's true identity.”
This establishes the court's holding that the statutory definition of disguise requires more than a simple change of clothing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers observed Arrison exiting a stolen car while wearing blue jeans and a black, white, and blue striped shirt. After he fled on foot, he w…
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 Obstruction Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice by a disguised person, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 848.03 (1993).
The defendant was pursued after being observed exiting a stolen car by police officers. As the defendant fled on foot, the officers observed him wearing blue jeans and a black, white, and blue striped shirt. When the defendant was arrested in his apartment approximately 30 minutes later, the defendant had changed his shirt, although the evidence did not reflect the color or style of this second shirt. The evidence also did not indicate that the defendant had changed his appearance in any other way. Based upon this evidence alone, the defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice by a disguised person.
The mere act of changing one s shirt, absent other facts or circumstances, does not amount to wearing a disguise, and does not constitute a violation of Section 843.03, because it does not change one’s overall general appearance and does not hide one’s true identity. See Hartley v. State, 372 So. 2d 1180, 1181-82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Leland v. State, 386 So. 2d 622, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (§ 843.03 is not violated by giving a police officer a false name); Commonwealth v. Healey, 17 Mass.App. 537, 460 N.E. 2d 616 (1984) (discussing the term “disguise” in the context of a similar statute, and collecting cases). Therefore, we reverse the defendant’s conviction for the alleged violar tion of Section 843.03, and remand for the entry of a judgment of acquittal on this charge. The defendant has not challenged his remaining convictions, and we do not disturb them.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leland v. State, 386 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Carroll W. Tharp, Jr., 372 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Hartley v. State, 372 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)