T.S.S., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; T.J., 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.
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction for disorderly conduct under section 877.03, Florida Statutes.
Appellants were charged with disorderly conduct after a sheriff's deputy responded to a loud party. The deputy testified the appellants were loud and …
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 Fighting Words Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
T.S.S. and T. J. appeal the final order withholding adjudication for disorderly conduct and the order of community control. We reverse because there was insufficient evidence of disorderly conduct, thus, rendering the sentencing issue moot.
The only evidence the state presented was the testimony of a sheriffs deputy, who responded to a loud party behind an apartment building. The deputy’s testimony did not support a determination that the boys violated section 877.03, Florida Statutes (1993). The deputy did not hear either boy say anything in particular. The deputy testified that they continued to “hoot and holler and carry on and scream at us and of course make fun of the police.” He did not testify that the boys said anything to incite the other people who were at the party; they only encouraged them to “hoot and holler.”
We conclude that the trial court should have granted the defense’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case. See State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641, 643 (Fla.1976) (prosecution under section 877.03 allowed only when defendant uses “ ‘fighting words’ or words like shouts of ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre”). See also C.P. v. State, 644 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (evidence insufficient to support a conviction for disorderly conduct where defendant became loud and verbally abusive which disturbed motel occupants). Furthermore, neither T.S.S. nor T.J. did anything to interfere with the deputy’s duties. They were just annoying and loud. Under Gonzales v. City of Belle Glade, 287 So. 2d 669, 670 (Fla.1973), that is not enough to convict them of disorderly conduct.
Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal for the defense.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chandler v. State, 744 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…can form the basis for a disorderly conduct conviction only where they are “fighting words” or “false [words] reporting some physical hazard.” See Saunders, 339 So. 2d at 644. Simply yelling and screaming is insufficient. See, e.g., T.S.S. v. State, 696 So. 2d 820, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(holding that trial judge erred in failing to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on disorderly conduct charge where deputy testified that, although he could not hear what either T.S.S. or T.J. was saying in particular, t…
-
Marsh v. State, 724 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…gathering crowd (of upwards of ten people) to such a level that a second officer developed safety concerns. See State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1976). This case is distinguishable from the cases cited by the defendant such as T.S.S. v. State, 696 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), Miller v. State, 667 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), B.R. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)and L.A.T. v. State, 650 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), wherein the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant’s con…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1976)
- Iva Nelson Gonzales v. City OF Belle Glade, 287 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1973)
- Simpson v. Parsons, 644 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- C.P. v. State, 644 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)