Brugal v. State
217 So. 3d 134
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Between April and May 2011 the State charged Alain Brugal with eight counts involving his then-stepdaughter A.D.: five counts of lewd and lascivious battery and three counts of lewd and lascivious molestation. The information alleged only broad date ranges for each group of counts, not specific dates.
- At trial the victim testified to eight separate incidents occurring on different days within the charged intervals and described distinctive circumstances for each incident.
- The jury convicted Brugal on all eight counts. The defense had not moved for a statement of particulars before trial.
- After the verdict the trial court granted a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on six counts (Counts 2–5, 7, and 8), reasoning that some counts were duplicative under double jeopardy principles. The court denied a new trial.
- The appellate court affirmed convictions for Counts 1 and 6, reversed the judgment of acquittal as to Counts 2–5 and 7 (reinstating those convictions), affirmed the acquittal as to Count 8 on sufficiency grounds, and remanded for an amended judgment and resentencing.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brugal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-verdict judgment of acquittal was proper under double jeopardy for multiple counts alleging acts in undifferentiated time periods | Counts alleged distinct acts supported by victim testimony showing temporal/spatial breaks; convictions may stand | Information charged broad date ranges and identically-worded counts; jury verdicts did not specify which acts supported which counts, so multiple convictions violate double jeopardy | Reversed trial court as to Counts 2–5 and 7; evidence showed discrete episodes allowing separate convictions; convictions reinstated |
| Whether Count 8 (molestation) was supported by the evidence as charged | State: jury convicted; Count 8 alleged touching of specified body areas or clothing under molestation statute | Brugal: evidence showed forced oral contact (victim’s mouth), not touching of breasts/genitals/covered areas as alleged; mismatch between theory and charge | Affirmed acquittal on Count 8: proof did not establish the specific touching alleged in the information |
| Admissibility of testimony that Brugal had a gun on the bedpost (first incident) | State: testimony relevant to victim’s fear and delayed reporting | Brugal: testimony prejudicial and irrelevant | Admission affirmed: evidence related to victim’s fear and delay in disclosure; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether written judgment must be corrected to reflect actual convictions | State: sought reversal of acquittals and reinstatement of convictions; remedy is amended judgment and resentencing | Brugal: sought vacatur of additional counts or new trial; argued sentencing/judgment must match convictions | Court ordered reversal of certain acquittals, affirmed one acquittal, directed amended judgment and resentencing; defendant must be present |
Key Cases Cited
- Manetta v. State, 81 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (vacating a duplicative conviction where identically worded counts alleged the same single-day episode)
- Cabanela v. State, 871 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (double jeopardy bars multiple convictions arising from a single criminal episode without significant spatial/temporal breaks)
- Eaddy v. State, 789 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (analysis requiring consideration of spatial and temporal distinctions to determine distinct acts)
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2006) (de novo review standard for judgments of acquittal based on double jeopardy)
- Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)