S.G., 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.
S.G., a juvenile defendant, appealed her adjudication of delinquency for battery on a school employee. The trial court erred in using the transferred intent doctrine to elevate the charge from a first degree misdemeanor to a third degree felony, as Florida law prohibits transferred intent from being used to enhance a crime's severity against an unintended victim.
No. Florida courts have expressly held that the transferred intent doctrine is inapplicable to enhance the severity of a crime against an unintended victim. S.G. can only be convicted of simple battery, not battery on a school employee, because her intent to strike the student cannot be transferred to the unintended victim (the school employee) for purposes of enhancing the crime's severity.
[1] The doctrine of transferred intent is inapplicable to enhance the severity of a crime against an unintended victim.
[2] A defendant's intent to strike one person cannot be transferred to elevate a battery charge to a felony when the unintended victim is a school employee.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Florida courts have expressly held that the transferred intent doctrine is inapplicable to enhance the severity of a crime against an unintended victim.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that transferred intent cannot be used to upgrade a charge based on the unintended victim's status.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS.G. was involved in a verbal altercation with another student at a youth shelter. When a school employee attempted to escort the other student out of…
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 Transferred Intent Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
S.G. (defendant) appeals her adjudication of delinquency. The State properly concedes that the trial court reversibly erred in reclassifying the defendant’s battery conviction from a first degree misdemeanor to a third degree felony. Accordingly, we reverse.
The defendant was charged with committing the crime of battery in violation of section 784.03 of the Florida Statutes (2008), a first degree misdemeanor. The State sought to reclassify the charge to a third degree felony pursuant to section 784.081(2) of the Florida Statutes (2008) based on the fact that the victim of the defendant’s crime was a school employee.1 At trial, testimony established that the defendant engaged in a verbal altercation with another student at the Great Oaks Village youth shelter. A school employee attempted to escort the other student out of the classroom. As the employee was removing the other student, the defendant threw a stapler in the student’s direction with the intent to strike the student. However, the stapler struck the employee. The defendant argued that the State’s evidence could not elevate the simple battery charge to a felony absent proof of her specific intent to strike the victim. *385The court disagreed and found the defendant guilty of battery on a school employee.
The doctrine of transferred intent transfers the defendant’s intent as to the intended victim to the unintended victim. Mordica, v. State, 618 So.2d 301, 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). However, Florida courts have expressly held that the transferred intent doctrine is inapplicable to enhance the severity of a crime against an unintended victim. See B.L.L. v. State, 764 So.2d 837, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that transferred intent was not applicable when a student intended to strike a fellow student, but instead struck a school employee); D.J. v. State, 651 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (explaining that “only the appellant’s intent to strike his opponent — a student — could be transferred, and there could be no intent to strike a school employee”); Sagner v. State, 791 So.2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(stating that the doctrine of transferred intent is inapplicable to enhance the severity of the intended crime against an unintended victim).
The State properly concedes that the trial court erred in applying the transferred intent doctrine to enhance the severity of the defendant’s crime, and, therefore, the defendant can only be found to have committed a battery. Accordingly, the defendant’s adjudication of delinquency for battery on a school employee is reversed, and the case is remanded for the trial court to enter judgment on the battery charge and to sentence the defendant accordingly.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crittenden v. State, 137 So. 3d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (stating that the doctrine of transferred intent would not apply to elevate V.M.’s general intent to commit a simple battery on her brother to the specific intent required to commit a battery on a pregnant person); S.G. v. State, 29 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (stating that the doctrine of transferred intent would not apply to [*1172] transfer the intent to strike a student, a simple battery, to the intent to strike a school employee). What distinguishes Mordica, V.M., and S.G. from t…
-
T. K. v. State, 245 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Mordica v. State, 618 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- D.J. v. State, 651 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Sagner v. State, 791 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- State v. Fender, 764 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- B.L.L. v. State, 764 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)