DAVID PATRICK MARSH, 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 supported a disorderly conduct conviction but that the defendant could only be convicted of one count of resisting an officer without violence.
[1] A defendant's loud, belligerent, and accusatory conduct directed at an officer may constitute disorderly conduct if it excites a gathering crowd to a level that raises sa…
[2] Evidence of a single continuing episode of resisting an officer without violence supports only one conviction for that offense.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of resisting an officer without violence, culpable negligence, and disorderly conduct. He appealed, arguing the trial cour…
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 Disorderly Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his convictions for two counts of resisting an officer without violence, culpable negligence and disorderly conduct.
The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the disorderly conduct charge. We disagree. The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state as it must be in considering such a motion, established that the defendant’s loud, belligerent, accusatory tirade, targeted at Officer Kelly, was such that it excited the 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 conduct had the effect of exciting a crowd so as to create safety concerns.
We additionally observe that the court and jury in this case had the benefit of an audio tape of the incident which had been prepared by the defendant and which was played at trial. The court and the jury thus had the unusual opportunity of hearing the actual events surrounding the incident.
The defendant does present a meritorious point. It was error for the court to adjudicate the defendant guilty and sentence him for two separate counts of resisting arrest without violence. The evidence supports only a single continuing episode of resisting without violence.
The convictions and sentences for disorderly conduct, culpable negligence and one count of resisting an officer without violence are affirmed. The conviction and sentence for the second count of resisting without violence is reversed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
GRIFFIN, C.J. and HARRIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.C.H. v. State, 753 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Marsh v. State, 724 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Proko v. State, 566 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). ANTOON, C.J., DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.…
-
Barry v. State, 934 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
-
Duckens Oxyde v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1976)
- L.A.T. v. State, 650 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Miller v. State, 667 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- B.R. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- T.S.S. v. State, 696 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)