T.M., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Affirmed conviction; Florida law prohibits use of force to resist arrest by law enforcement, and criminal mischief requires willful and wrongful conduct with intent to cause injury or damage.
A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer under Florida law, and criminal mischief requires proof of willful and wrongful conduct with intent to cause injury or damage.
[1] A person is not justified in using or threatening force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, and section 776.051(1) abrogates any common law right to resist…
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 intelligenceT.M., a juvenile, was charged with a crime involving resistance to arrest and criminal mischief.…
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 Felonious Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
*1010Affirmed. See § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing that a person "is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer"); Polite v. State, 973 So.2d 1107, 1117 (Fla. 2007) (observing that section 776.051(1) abrogates the common law right in Florida to resist an illegal arrest with force, and "forecloses the defense of justifiable use of force by a defendant who resists an arrest by a law enforcement officer") (quoting Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1269 (Fla. 2006) ); M.H. v. State, 936 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding criminal mischief is not a specific intent crime, but requires proof of an act that "is willful (intentional) and wrongful (with evil intent that injury or damage will or may be caused)"); Mosher v. State, 750 So.2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (observing: "It is a well-established principle of law that the issue of felonious intent or state of mind of the defendant is generally a jury question that, in most instances, cannot be ascertained by direct proof, but must be inferred from the surrounding circumstances"). See also Crain v. State, 894 So.2d 59, 71 (Fla. 2004) (observing: "[T]he weight of the evidence and the witnesses' credibility are questions solely for the jury. It is not this Court's function to retry a case or reweigh conflicting evidence submitted to the trier of fact").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2004)
- Tillman v. State, 934 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2006)
- Polite v. State, 973 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2007)
- M.H. v. State, 936 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Mosher v. State, 750 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)