207 So. 3d 903
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Shortly after 1:30 a.m., the victim observed two people interfering with vehicles at his repair shop; he approached and found the appellant touching a truck.
- The appellant dropped to his knees; the victim, positioned between the two suspects, drew his firearm and scared off the other person.
- The victim saw the appellant reach toward his waist and, fearing the worst, seized a pellet gun from the appellant’s waistband—the pellet gun was the first time the victim actually saw a weapon.
- The victim never heard any verbal threat and testified he did not know the appellant’s intent when the appellant reached toward his waist; he assumed a worst‑case scenario and was afraid.
- The State charged burglary with assault while armed and carrying a concealed weapon; the juvenile court found the appellant delinquent on both counts after denying motions for judgment of dismissal.
- On appeal the court considered whether the State presented sufficient evidence that the appellant intentionally threatened the victim (an essential element of assault). The court reversed the assault adjudication and remanded for resentencing on burglary with a weapon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved element of intentional threat for assault | State: reaching for waist where a weapon was found permits inference of intent to threaten | Appellant: reaching did not show intent; weapon was concealed and not drawn or pointed | Reversed: insufficient evidence of an intentional threat; conviction cannot stand |
| Whether victim’s fear alone establishes assault | State: victim’s fear supports assault conviction | Appellant: focus must be on actor’s intent, not victim’s reaction | Held for appellant: intent, not victim’s fear, is required |
| Whether case is controlled by prior appellate precedent | State: distinguishing authority cited by defense | Appellant: Benitez controls and requires reversal | Court: followed Benitez and found cases cited by State distinguishable |
| Remedy on reversal | State: sought affirmance of assault or alternative | Appellant: request resentencing on burglary with weapon | Court: reversed assault adjudication and remanded to resentence on burglary with weapon |
Key Cases Cited
- Benitez v. State, 901 So.2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (intent to threaten requires evidence of an overt act showing defendant intended to threaten)
- D.J.D. v. State, 143 So.3d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (standard of review for denial of judgment of dismissal in juvenile case)
- Denard v. State, 30 So.3d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (discusses requirement of intentional threat element of assault)
- Lifka v. State, 530 So.2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (analysis of overt act and intent in assault charge)
- Battles v. State, 288 So.2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (early discussion of assault elements and intent)
- L.R.W. v. State, 848 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (examined other elements of assault; distinguished here)
- Willard v. State, 386 So.2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (considered overt acts creating well‑founded fear; distinguished here)