ERNEST D. TIGER, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY MARCUS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed an injunction against repeat violence because the evidence established only one act of violence (battery), not the two required instances under § 784.046.
An injunction against repeat violence cannot be entered without evidence of at least two instances of violence, and a verbal threat without an overt act demonstrating imminent violence does not constitute assault.
[1] A verbal threat without an overt act demonstrating that violence is imminent does not constitute assault under Florida law.
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“in the absence of some overt act demonstrating that violence is imminent, a verbal threat does not constitute an "assault."”
Court explaining why Marcus's testimony about a verbal threat on August 7th did not establish a second instance of violence.
Tiger committed a battery against Marcus on August 30, 2008. Marcus and his girlfriend testified that bricks were thrown through their apartment windo…
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 Imminent Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal, Ernest D. Tiger challenges an injunction against repeat violence entered against him and in favor of Harry Marcus. To be entitled to such an injunction, the petitioner must demonstrate that he has been the victim of “repeat violence.” See § 784.046(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). “Repeat violence” requires at least two instances of “violence.” § 784.046(l)(b), Fla. Stat. “Violence” includes an assault and a battery. § 784.046(l)(a), Fla. Stat. While the evidence was sufficient to establish that Tiger committed an act of violence against Marcus on August 30, 2008, i.e., a battery, there was no evidence of a second instance of “violence.” Marcus and his girlfriend, Rose Capote, testified that bricks were thrown through their apartment window, but they could not identify Tiger as the one responsible. And, while Marcus testified that Tiger verbally threatened him on August 7th, in the absence of some overt act demonstrating that violence is imminent, a verbal threat does not constitute an “assault.” See, e.g., Sorin v. Cole, 929 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Santiago v. Towle, 917 So.2d 909, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The order appealed is thus reversed.
Reversed.
STEVENSON, HAZOURI and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Katina Williams v. Gonder, 133 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ore, except for the conclusory assumption made in the petition that Appellant must have keyed Appellee’s car in August 2013, no competent, substantial evidence was presented that Appellant committed the second act at all. See, e.g., Tiger v. Marcus, 37 So. 3d 986, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Marcus and his girlfriend, Rose Capote, testified that bricks were thrown through their apartment window, but they could not identify Tiger as the one responsible. And, while Marcus testified that Tiger verbally threatened…
Authorities Cited
- Sorin v. Cole, 929 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Santiago v. Towle, 917 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)