TANYA BRYANT, 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.
Defendant was charged with aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer for driving a vehicle toward him. The jury convicted on the lesser included offense of simple battery. The court affirmed, holding that evidence was sufficient to support the conviction because the defendant's deliberate driving of the vehicle toward the officer constituted battery even though the officer managed to avoid serious injury.
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the battery conviction. The defendant's deliberate driving of the vehicle toward the officer constituted battery regardless of whether the officer initiated contact with the vehicle or whether the officer managed to avoid serious injury through self-protective measures.
[1] A defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal admits every inference and conclusion favorable to the state that a jury might fairly and reasonably draw from the evidence…
[2] Trial courts should not grant judgments of acquittal unless, when viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence still fails to establish a prima facie cas…
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“In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits every inference and conclusion favorable to the state that a jury might fairly and reasonably draw from the evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for a motion for judgment of acquittal—all inferences must be viewed favorably to the prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer was investigating a theft and searching for suspects. While arriving at a department store, he observed one suspect enter a parked vehicle …
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 Aggravated Assault On A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
In this case where the state charged defendant with aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer (LEO) for driving a vehicle into him, the jury returned a verdict on the lesser included offense of simple battery on a LEO. Still, defendant argues that there was not enough evidence for the charge to go to the jury. Her theory is that the LEO initiated the contact with the vehicle, so it cannot be thought unconsented. We disagree.
From its perspective, the facts proved during the state’s case in chief are as follows. The officer was investigating a theft at a grocery store. He had descriptions of two suspects and was searching for them at other stores in the area. He was soon summoned to a department store, and as he was arriving saw two suspects being led away by another officer. The suspects bolted from the other officer, however, and the first officer saw one of them enter a parked vehicle and start the engine. That turned out to be defendant.
Just as the officer approached the passenger side in the area of the right front door and fender, she placed the car in reverse, turned the wheels and proceeded to back out. The car swiftly backed into the area where the officer was standing. Fearing that the front wheels were going to drive over his feet, he thrust his hands on the auto in an act of self protection to push himself away. He then proceeded around the front of the vehicle as it stopped and stood near the driver’s side of the bumper. He looked directly at the driver, who looked back at him. The driver then placed the car in gear and accelerated forward at the officer, who once again was forced to react by pushing off as the vehicle neared him. Ultimately she stopped the car after it had forced him to move away and was later arrested and charged with aggravated battery on a LEO.
In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits every inference and conclusion favorable to the state that a jury might fairly and reasonably draw from the evidence. Green v. State, 706 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Trial courts should not grant judgments of acquittal unless, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence still fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt. Id. Where the State presents competent evidence supporting every element of the crime, a judgment of acquittal is properly denied. Boyce v. State, 638 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); and Anderson v. State, 504 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
The above facts are consistent with the elements of simple battery. A jury could reasonably have inferred that the defendant purposefully drove her vehicle into the officer to move him aside as she attempted to drive away from the scene. Although the officer was compelled by the danger into reacting by touching the vehicle before it actually drove over his feet or struck him forcefully, those initial contacts were responses to the conduct of the defendant in setting in motion what could have become a striking of his body causing serious injury. The fact that the victim is able to block the thrust of the swordsman with his own arm, and thereby avoid the wound, does not make the thrust any less a battery.
AFFIRMED.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. State, 973 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…vincing as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendants’ guilt and must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of the defendants’ innocence”). However, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the state. Bryant v. State, 789 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The state asserts that the facts in this case are the same as those in Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1982), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Merck v. State, 763 So. 2d 295 (Fla.2000), wherein t…
-
Norris Riggins v. State, 898 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…n the victim’s home. Shortly after the defendant’s arrest, the victim identified the clothes being worn by the defendant as belonging to the victim. We hold there was “competent evidence supporting every element of the crime[s] ...” Bryant v. State, 789 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The defendant next argues the court erred in reading the standard jury instruction on the possession of recently stolen property. We find this argument unpersuasive for three reasons. First, there was no objection to the…
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. State, 504 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Boyce v. State, 638 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Green v. State, 706 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)