Pinkney v. State, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18473

Pinkney was convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, resisting or obstructing an officer without violence, and fleeing or eluding with high speed.
Only the aggravated assault judgment and sentence are challenged on appeal; other convictions stand.
Evidence showed Pinkney backed his car toward Officer Zammitt, creating a threat and fear of imminent harm to the officer.
Witnesses described the proximity and timing: the reverse lights activated, Pinkney’s car moved toward the officer, and officers observed the threat.
Pinkney argued the State failed to prove the specific intent to do violence; the trial court denied the judgment of acquittal.
The court recedes from State v. Shorette's framing of the intent element and clarifies assault elements under Florida law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved an intentional threat under 784.011(1).	Pinkney	State	Yes; sufficient evidence to support a threat of imminent violence.
Whether the evidence shows Pinkney knew the officer was in the path of travel.	Pinkney	State	Sufficient circumstantial evidence; jury could infer knowledge of the officer's location.
Whether the State proved intent to threaten or merely a flight response consistent with fleeing.	Pinkney	State	State may prove intent by substantial certainty to threaten; viewed as circumstantial evidence.

State v. Shorette, 404 So.2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (misstatement of intent element; court recedes later)
Linehan v. State, 442 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (receded from Russell; prohibits inferring from willfulness alone)
C.B. v. State, 810 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (substantial certainty standard for intent in battery-related context)
S.D. v. State, 882 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (affirming substantial certainty approach to intent)
Reynolds v. State, 784 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (statute punishes acts substantially certain to result in cruelty)
Russell v. State, 373 So.2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (initially tied intent to assault; later receded)
Benitez v. State, 901 So.2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (defines elements of assault and the need to prove intentional threat)
Waters v. State, 436 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1983) (intent of state of mind often proven circumstantially)
Law v. State, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1989) (Law of circumstantial evidence standard for intent)
Swift v. State, 973 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (distinguishable reversal where lack of awareness of officer behind SUV)
Cambell v. State, 37 So.3d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (recognizes focus on intent to threaten; addresses misstatements in Swift/Shorette)