PETER ANTHONY AUDANO, JR., 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.
A conviction must be reversed if the prosecution fails to prove the offense occurred within the time frame specified in a bill of particulars.
[1] A conviction must be reversed when the prosecution fails to prove the charged offense occurred within the time frame specified in a bill of particulars.
[2] A trial court errs by denying a motion for judgment of acquittal when the state fails to present evidence establishing the commission of the offense within the time frame…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with sexual battery, with the bill of particulars specifying the act occurred between May 3, 1991, and July 4, 1991. The vic…
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 Bill Of Particulars cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
This is Mr. Audano’s second appearance before this court. In Audano v. State, 641 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), we reversed his convictions for committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of sixteen and remanded the case for a new trial. At his second trial, the jury again found Mr. Audano guilty, and he now challenges those convictions. He has raised three issues, but we find merit in only one, that the state failed to prove the act charged in Count III occurred in the time frame alleged in the information and the bill of particulars. We affirm Mr. Audano’s other two points on appeal without discussion.
Count III charged that Audano committed sexual battery on the victim by placing his tongue on her vagina “beginning on or about the 3rd day of May, 1991, through the 4th day of July, 1991.... ” In response to a motion by Audano’s counsel, the state filed a bill of particulars, which also stated that the incident alleged in the count occurred between those dates. At trial, the victim testified the oral sexual activity charged in Count III occurred after July 4, 1991. The state did not present any other evidence to establish when the crime had been committed, nor did it ask to amend the information to conform to the evidence. At the close of the state’s case, Audano moved for a judgment of acquittal on Count III, but the trial court denied his motion.
When a bill of particulars narrows the time within which the crime occurred, and the prosecution fails to show the defendant committed the offense within that time frame, a conviction on the charge must be reversed. State v. Jefferson, 419 So. 2d 380, 331-32 (Fla.1982); State v. Beamon, 298 So. 2d 376, 378-79 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124, 95 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975). We, therefore, reverse Mr. Audano’s conviction for Count III, and remand to the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal on that count. We affirm his convictions on Counts I and II.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gisi v. State, 909 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ed certain dates in a statement of particulars, and Gisi was entitled to an acquittal when the evidence failed to establish that the offense occurred on the date specified. See State v. Jefferson, 419 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1982); see also Audano v. State, 674 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“When a bill of particulars narrows the time within which the crime occurred, and the prosecution fails to show the defendant committed the offense within that time frame, a conviction on the charge must be reversed.”). Beca…
-
COX v. State, 764 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…of the offense charged. If the evidence of an element of the offense charged does not conform to the date of the offense alleged in the information, the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted. See, generally, Audano v. State, 674 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Hutchinson v. State, 453 So. 2d 900, 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). See also J.P. v. State, 681 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(evidence of value did not support charge of grand theft, but did support the lesser-included offe…
-
Bettey v. State, 244 So. 3d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Raven v. United States, 419 U.S. 1124 (U.S. 1975)
- State v. Beamon, 298 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1974)
- Audano v. State, 641 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)