BRIAN M. HUTCHINSON, 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.
Brian Hutchinson was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm, improper exhibition of a firearm, and resisting arrest without violence. The appellate court affirmed the first two convictions but reversed the resisting arrest conviction because the trial court improperly allowed the state to amend the charge mid-trial to name a different officer than the one originally charged.
The amendment was not a harmless correction of a misnomer but rather the filing of a new and entirely different charge. Because Hutchinson was not charged with resisting Officer Brown and was not on trial for that offense, the amendment was harmful error requiring reversal of the resisting arrest conviction.
[1] A trial court errs by allowing the state to amend an information to add a new victim to a charge after the state has rested its case, over the defendant's objection.
[2] Amending an information to substitute a different victim for the charged offense constitutes the filing of a new and entirely different charge, not a mere correction of a…
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 trial court, by granting the state's motion to amend at the conclusion of its case, thereby allowed the jury to find appellant guilty of the crime of battery [on Deputy Gore], a crime for which he had not been charged and for which he was not on trial.”
Establishes that mid-trial amendment to name a different officer victim constitutes charging a new crime rather than correcting a misnomer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring apprehension, Hutchinson came into contact with two police officers, Brown and Schlosser. He was initially charged with resisting Officer Schlo…
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 Improper Exhibition Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
HAZOURI, J.
Brian Hutchinson (Hutchinson) appeals from his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault with a firearm, improper exhibition of a firearm and resisting arrest without violence. We affirm the convictions and sentences for aggravated assault with a firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm but reverse the conviction and sentence for resisting arrest without violence.
In the course of being apprehended, Hutchinson came in contact with two police officers, Brown and Schlosser. Hutchinson was charged with resisting Officer Schlosser without violence. After the state rested, Hutchinson moved for directed verdict on count III. This count alleged that appellant resisted Officer Schlosser. However, no evidence was introduced to prove that Hutchinson resisted Schlosser. Instead of directing a verdict, the trial judge allowed the state to amend the information adding Officer Brown to the charge over Hutchinson’s objection. The jury found Hutchinson guilty of the amended charge. This court has recently addressed a strikingly similar case in Green v. State, 728 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
In Green, the defendant was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer named Parrish. During the trial, the state moved to amend the name of the victim to Deputy Gore over the defendant’s objection. Judge Owen speaking for the court wrote that this was not just an amendment but essentially the filing of a new and entirely different charge. It was not a case of correcting a misnomer. Judge Owen stated:
The trial court, by granting the state’s motion to amend at the conclusion of its case, thereby allowed the jury to find appellant guilty of the crime of battery on Deputy Gore, a crime for which he had not been charged and for which he was not on trial.
Id. at 781.
As in the Green case, this was not simply an amendment which merely clarified or corrected a simple misnomer, nor was it a case of simply correcting the name of the victim where only a single officer was involved and no one, including the defendant, reasonably could have been misled as to the identity of the victim. We agree with Hutchinson that permitting the amendment was harmful error. The portion of the judgment pertaining to count III of resisting an officer without violence is reversed. In all other respects the judgment and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson Baltazare Simbert v. State, 226 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…led as to the identity of the victim.” Id. By permitting the amendment, the trial court allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty of “a crime for which he had not been charged and for which he was not on trial.” Id. See also Hutchinson v. State, 738 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (finding harmful error in permitting the state to amend the information, after a motion for directed verdict, to name a different police officer in the charge for resisting arrest without violence). In Green and Hutchinson,…
-
Carlson v. State, 166 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…o. 2d 779, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Generally, “amendment is permissible when it merely clarifies some detail of the existing charge and could not reasonably have caused the defendant any prejudice.” Id. at 781. Our decision in Hutchinson v. State, 738 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), is instructive to this case. In Hutchinson, the defendant was charged with, among other things, resisting an officer without violence. Id. at 473. Because no evidence was introduced at trial to prove that the defendant resisted…
-
Ngoc C. Thach v. State (Fla. 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Green v. State, 728 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)