L.L.P., 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 reversed a delinquency adjudication for battery on a detention facility staff member because the State failed to prove the victim was employed at a detention or commitment facility, an essential element of the enhanced offense.
The State must prove that the victim was a staff member of a detention or commitment facility as an essential element of the enhanced battery offense, and the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal when this element was not established by evidence.
[1] An essential element of battery on a detention or commitment facility staff member is that the victim was employed at such a facility, and this element must be proven by…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 may have known what the facility was, but it was nevertheless not part of the State's proof.”
The court explained why the trial court's personal knowledge of the facility could not cure the State's failure to present evidence of this essential element.
L.L.P., a child, was charged with third-degree felony battery on a detention facility staff member after striking a victim and throwing cookies at her…
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 Simple Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
L.L.P., a child, appeals her adjudication of delinquency for the third-degree felony offense of battery on a juvenile detention or commitment facility staff member.1
At trial, the victim testified that she worked for First Step Adolescent Services in Orange County, Florida, on the “ruby side” and was passing out cookies to all the children there. A tussle with L.L.P. ensued, during which L.L.P. struck the victim and threw cookies at her. After the State rested, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State failed to prove the victim was a staff member of a detention or commitment facility, which is essential to the enhanced battery offense. The State offered to recall the victim to supply this missing evidence, but the trial court instead denied the motion, observing that it was clear from the evidence that the victim worked at “some facility.”
L.L.P. was correct that the evidence was deficient. The State urges that the trial court should have allowed the fact-finder to “infer” what the facility was from the evidence, but the evidence was minimal, and it plainly is inadequate to prove that the victim and defendant were in a detention or commitment facility. The trial court may have known what the facility was, but it was nevertheless not part of the State’s proof. See G.S. v. State, 761 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to reduce the conviction to simple battery.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Section 784.07, Fla. Stat. (2004).