ULYSSES ULICE GILBERT, 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.
Gilbert was convicted of aggravated assault after pointing a gun at a bartender's head and threatening to shoot her if she called police. The court affirmed, holding that when a defendant points a gun at a victim in a threatening manner, the victim is justified in inferring the gun is loaded and the finder of fact may infer the victim was placed in fear of imminent violence.
The court held that aggravated assault requires the victim's well-founded fear that violence is imminent. When a defendant points a gun at a victim in a threatening manner within obvious range, the victim is justified in inferring the gun is loaded, and the finder of fact is justified in inferring the victim was placed in fear of imminent violence without requiring direct testimony of fear.
[1] Aggravated assault requires as an element the victim's well-founded fear that violence is imminent.
[2] Pointing a pistol at a victim's head in plain view satisfies the elements of aggravated assault, including the victim's well-founded fear of imminent violence.
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“the crime of aggravated assault includes as one of its elements the victim's well-founded fear that violence is imminent”
States the essential legal principle for aggravated assault that the court applies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGilbert was playing pool at the Zebra Lounge when he began cursing. The bartender and manager, Louvenia Robinson, asked him to be quiet or leave. When…
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 Well-Founded Fear Of Imminent Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
As mandated by the Florida Supreme Court in Gilbert v. State, 344 So. 2d 564 (Fla.1977), this cause is before us for further consideration in light of State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fla.1975). We have reviewed the case again, taking into consideration the supplemental briefs filed by counsel for the defense and for the State.
The facts show that the defendant, Ulysses Ulice Gilbert, was playing pool in the Zebra Lounge where the victim, Louvenia Robinson is the bar maid and manager. The defendant began to curse and Louvenia asked him to be quiet or leave. He continued to curse, so Louvenia went to the tele phone to call the police. The defendant pulled a gun, pointed it at Louvenia’s head and told her if she called the police, , . he would blow [her] God damned brains out.” Louvenia saw that the gun was a dark color, and that the defendant held it to her head for several seconds,whereupon she obeyed and put the phone down. The defendant then left the Zebra waiving the gun at the patrons and stating, “Nobody better not follow me.”
The defendant was charged by information with aggravated assault. He waived jury trial, was tried without a jury, convicted and sentenced to two years non-reporting probation. During the trial, Louvenia testified to the facts recited above, and her testimony was corroborated by one of the bar patrons who witnessed the incident.
Defendant urges on appeal that there was no evidence of well-founded fear on the part of the victim that violence was imminent. We follow the principle of law espoused by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. White, supra, that the crime of aggravated assault includes as one of its elements the victim’s well-founded fear that violence is imminent. Applying it to the facts of this case, we find that the defendant’s action in pointing the pistol at the victim’s head in plain view of the victim and other persons present met all of the essential elements of aggravated assault. It is unlikely in the course of human events that a person in Louvenia’s circumstances would not have a well-founded fear that violence is imminent when a pistol is pointed at her head.
When one is confronted by another with a gun and does not know it to be unloaded, the natural reaction is to assume that the gun can be fired and can inflict great bodily harm. Bass v. State, 232 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). A gun used in connection with and at the scene of a robbery is as a matter of law a dangerous weapon and those on the scene are placed in an objective state of danger regardless of whether there is proof that the gun was loaded. Baker v. United States, 412 F. 2d 1069, 1072 (5th Cir. 1969). As expressed in 1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (10th Edition), page 667 and note, the person who attempts to rob another by putting him in fear of death or great bodily harm through his conduct in deliberately pointing a gun at him at close range impliedly represents that the gun is loaded, and the proof of such conduct establishes prima facie that the gun was loaded and capable of being discharged. Thomas v. State, 183 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), is a robbery case in which the victim did not provide direct testimony of being placed in fear. This court, nevertheless, held that where the circumstances were such as to ordinarily induce fear in the mind of a reasonable man, then the victim may be found to be in fear, and actual fear need not be strictly and precisely shown. See also Ponder v. State, 221 So. 2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), and Solloa v. State, 227 So. 2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1969).
We see no reason why the same rule should not apply to aggravated assault. That is, where the assault is accomplished by the pointing of a gun in a threatening manner, and within the obvious range of the gun, the victim is justified in inferring that the gun is loaded, and the finder of fact is justified in inferring that the victim was placed in fear of imminent violence. Therefore, from the facts in this case, we hold that there was a sufficient showing of fear on the part of the victim to sustain the conviction of aggravated assault.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Pallas v. State, 636 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…a subjective standard. Indeed, “where the circumstances were such as to ordinarily induce fear in the mind of a reasonable man, then the victim may be found to be in fear, and actual fear need not be strictly and precisely shown.” Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (citations omitted); McClain v. State, 383 So. 2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1376 (Fla.1980). The same principle applies to the definition of “harasses” under the stalking statute; the legislature h…
-
Kindell v. State, 413 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…d deal with the victims upon her return and would start shooting if the door was not opened, constituted sufficient circumstances to warrant a reasonable inference in the minds of the intended victims that bodily harm was imminent. Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The defendant also contends that her conviction of felonious display of a firearm must be reversed because the elements necessary to sustain that charge also form the basis of her conviction of the separate charge of aggravated…
-
L.R.W. A Child v. State, 848 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…e of mind. See McClain v. State, 383 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). If the circumstances are such as would ordinarily induce fear in the mind of a reasonable person, then the victim may properly be found to have been in fear. See Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Here, although Brown did not testify as to her state of mind, Ms. George gave testimony that LRW was holding the chair directly over her head and was menacing Brown. Although Brown might have been laughing, the trial court…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Loy Lavator Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1969)
- State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1975)
- Bass v. State, 232 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Thomas v. State, 183 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Solloa v. State, 227 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Jones v. State, 221 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Ponder v. State, 221 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Ulysses Ulice Gilbert v. State, 344 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1977)