T.B., A CHILD, 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.
T.B., a juvenile, appealed an adjudication of delinquency for aggravated battery by use of a deadly weapon. The court affirmed, holding that photographs of the victim's injuries were admissible as relevant evidence despite injury not being an element of the charged offense, and clarified that Clark v. State did not establish a per se rule excluding such evidence.
The photograph was properly admissible because it was relevant for multiple purposes including determining whether a deadly weapon was used, whether a battery occurred, and explaining the manner in which the weapon was deployed. The court also held that evidence of victim injury, even when not an element of the offense charged, is admissible if otherwise relevant. The amendment timeliness issue was not preserved for appeal.
[1] Evidence depicting the extent of victim injury is admissible in an aggravated battery prosecution if it is otherwise relevant, even if victim injury is not a required ele…
[2] Photographs of a victim's injuries may be relevant to determine whether a deadly weapon was used, whether a battery occurred, or to explain the victim's condition.
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“Evidence depicting the extent of victim injury is often excludable where an aggravated battery is charged only by use of a weapon and not on the alternative basis of inflicting victim injury or disfigurement.”
Establishes the general rule that injury evidence may be excludable in aggravated battery by weapon cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.B. was charged with aggravated battery by use of a deadly weapon, allegedly cutting the victim's face with a razor. A photograph of the victim's fac…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm an order adjudicating Appellant delinquent. The trial court did not err by admitting a photograph of the victim’s injury notwithstanding that proof of victim injury is not a required element on a charge of aggravated battery by use of a deadly weapon. We consider this opinion en banc in order to clarify our opinion in Clark v. State, 632 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
The photograph was of the victim’s face allegedly cut by Appellant, using a razor. Several other photos of the victim’s body allegedly cut by a codefendant, using a broken bottle, were excluded on the defendant’s motion. The admitted photograph was deemed relevant.
Evidence depicting the extent of victim injury is often excludable where an aggravated battery is charged only by use of a weapon and not on the alternative basis of inflicting victim injury or disfigurement. See generally Clark; Edwards v. State, 530 So. 2d 936, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), approved, 548 So. 2d 656 (Fla.1989); Webb v. State, 609 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Gissendanner v. State, 570 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
However, in this case, the evidence may be relevant for several purposes, including the following: to determine whether Appellant used a deadly weapon against the victim; to determine whether a battery even occurred; to counter the assertion that a razor blade was not used but only a bottle; to explain the victim’s difficulty in making a clear statement to police immediately after the attack; and to demonstrate the manner in which the blade was used in order to qualify it as a deadly weapon.
In Clark, the defendant was charged with committing an aggravated battery by use of a deadly weapon. There, we said, “[i]n charging the defendant with subsection (b), the state was precluded from introducing evidence about the victim’s injuries since only aggravated battery by intentionally causing great harm allows evidence of injuries.” Id. at 89.
In that case, the weapon was a dog, a pit bull, and the only dispute relating to the issue before us apparently was whether the appellant, in dropping the leash, intended the dog to bite the victim. The state conceded error in the admission of the evidence, and the question on appeal was whether admitting 18 photographs of the injuries was harmless error. Here, we recognize that evidence of victim injury, even where not an element of the offense charged, is admissible if otherwise relevant. E.g., McGriff v. State, 417 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Peacock v. State, 638 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
See also King v. State, 545 So. 2d 375, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1989); Henderson v. State, 463 So. 2d 196, 200 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 916; 105 S.Ct. 3542, 87 L.Ed.2d 665 (1985).
This is consistent with decisions in other jurisdictions. See Arthur v. United States, 602 A. 2d 174 (D.C.1992); People v. Maxwell, 130 Ill. App.3d 212, 85 Ill.Dec. 632, 474 N.E. 2d 46 (1985).
Because Clark may be interpreted, as Appellant here asserts, as adopting a per se rule that requires the exclusion of evidence of victim injury whenever it is not an element of the charge, we deem it necessary to recede from that language to the extent that it may be interpreted as inconsistent with this opinion.
We also find no error as to the other issue raised that the state’s amendment of the delinquency petition prior to trial was not timely. That issue has not been preserved for appeal. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); R.F.R. v. State, 558 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Further, that issue cannot be resolved on this record: former section 39.048(6), Florida Statutes, required that a petition be filed within 45 days of a juvenile being taken into custody, but we cannot determine here precisely when Appellant was taken into custody. Cf. State v. C.J.A., 629 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. D.B.C., 413 So. 2d 455, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA), dismissed, 419 So. 2d 1196 (Fla.1982).
Therefore, the adjudication and commitment are affirmed. GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, DELL, WARNER, POLEN, FARMER, KLEIN, PARIENTE, STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Servis v. State, 855 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…officer -witnesses, the prosecutor’s argument constitutes an inappropriate attempt to persuade the jury that the police officer’s testimony should be believed simply because her or she is a police officer), overruled on other grounds, T.B. v. State, 669 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Fourth, the state misstated the law by implying to the jury that they could find Servís guilty as long as his blood alcohol level was .08 at some point during the night rather than that his blood alcohol level was .08 at the ti…
-
Antwuan Snell v. State, 939 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…the injuries to the victims of the accident. The defendant’s knowledge of injury is an element of the offense of leaving the scene of the accident involving injury or death. See State v. Dumas, 700 So. 2d 1223 (Fla.1997). Further, in T.B. v. State, 669 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we stated “evidence of victim injury, even where not an element of the offense charged, is admissible if otherwise relevant.” When a paramedic who attended to the victims of the accident testified, the state asked him to…
-
Fryer v. State, 693 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…, 678 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Williams v. State, [*1051] 673 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Davis v. State, 663 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Clark v. State, 632 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), overruled on other grounds by T.B. v. State, 669 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Landry v. State, 620 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Garrette v. State, 501 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Blackburn v. State, 447 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Richmond v. State, 387 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Francis…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Derinda Edwards v. State, 548 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1989)
- Henderson v. State, 463 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1985)
- Gentile-Youd v. In re Guardianship OF Harriet Rudnick, 632 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Ogden King, Jr. v. State, 545 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Henderson v. Florida, 473 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1985)
- Derinda Edwards v. State, 530 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- State v. D. B. C., 413 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- McGRIFF v. State, 417 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Cook v. Cook, 558 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)