Blue v. State, 2D03-3482.
| Decision Date | 09 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-3482.,2D03-3482. |
| Citation | 876 So.2d 1273 |
| Parties | Carl BLUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brett McIntosh, Sarasota, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John M. Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Carl Blue was convicted after a jury trial of throwing a deadly missile and aggravated assault. We reverse the conviction for throwing a deadly missile because the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the Information to change an element of the offense after the State had rested its case.
Count one of the Information charged that, on July 18, 2002, Blue did "throw a certain missile, or hurled or projected a stone or other hard substance, to-wit: TRAILOR [sic] HITCH, which would produce death or great bodily harm, at, within or into a building, contrary to section 790.19, Florida Statutes...." Blue moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the State's case arguing that while the information charged him with throwing a deadly missile within or into a building, the evidence showed that Blue had thrown a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle. In response to the motion, the State moved to amend the Information, and the trial court granted the State's motion. The trial court allowed the State to amend count one of the Information to delete the word "building" and insert in the words "train, locomotive, railway car, caboose, cable railway car, street railway car, monorail car or vehicle of any kind that was being used or occupied by any person."
Blue argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. He also argues that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment to the Information. We agree that the evidence did not support the charged offense and, thus, the trial court should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal. See Long v. State, 92 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla.1957) (). We also agree with Blue that it was error for the trial court to allow the amendment to the charging document because the amendment was not a mere correction of a scrivener's error but instead was a change to an element of the offense. By allowing the amendment, the trial court permitted the jury to find Blue guilty of a charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thach v. State
...(Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (amendment at trial raised new evidentiary issues regarding the existence of a specific object); Blue v. State , 876 So. 2d 1273, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (amendment of the alleged missile target injected new proof issues). AFFIRMED . B.L. Thomas and Osterhaus, JJ., concu......
-
Simbert v. State, 4D16-1633.
...new and entirely different offense," and was not merely clarification of details. Green , 728 So.2d at 781. See also Blue v. State , 876 So.2d 1273, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding the trial court erred in allowing an amendment to the charging document that "was not a mere correction of a ......
- Clark v. State
-
Charging a crime, arraignment and pleas
...amendment after the state rests is not allowed. ARRAIGNMENT/PLEAS CHARGING; 2.1 The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook 2-8 Blue v. State, 876 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) Third District Court of Appeal The state may file an identical information that has been dismissed without prejudice afte......