CAC v. State, 2D00-381.

Decision Date15 November 2000
Docket NumberNo. 2D00-381.,2D00-381.
Citation771 So.2d 1261
PartiesC.A.C., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Howardene Garrett, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah F. Hogge, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

C.A.C., a juvenile, appeals an order finding him guilty of committing the delinquent act of aggravated battery and placing him on community control. He claims the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of guilt against him for the offense of aggravated battery. We agree and reduce the finding of guilt from aggravated battery to simple battery.

Section 784.045, Florida Statutes (1999), provides:

(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.

Thus, the State was required to prove that C.A.C. used a deadly weapon, or that he intentionally caused great bodily harm to the victim.

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's finding, C.A.C., who was ten years old, was involved in a physical altercation with the victim, who was eleven years old. During the struggle, C.A.C. stabbed the victim two or three times in the back with a fork. C.A.C. had been using the fork to eat watermelon before the fight began. After the fight, the victim had scratches, swelling and puncture marks on his back. The victim, however, did not receive medical treatment for the injuries.

First, we must determine whether the victim suffered great bodily harm. The issue of whether injuries constitute great bodily harm is a question of fact. See Owens v. State, 289 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The State, however, must prove more than that the victim suffered some harm. See Williams v. State, 651 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). This court has observed that great bodily harm "`means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery.'" Owens, 289 So.2d at 474 (quoting Anderson v. State, 155 Ind.App. 121, 291 N.E.2d 579 (1973)). Here, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the victim suffered great bodily harm.

Next, we must determine whether the fork in this case qualified as a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is: any instrument which, when used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design, will or is likely to cause death or great bodily harm; or any instrument likely to cause great bodily harm because of the way it is used during a crime. See D.C. v. State, 567 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). "Whether a weapon is deadly is a question of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • United States v. Gandy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 6 mars 2019
    ...injuries, see, e.g. , Gordon v. State , 126 So.3d 292, 295–96, 296 n.4 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (bruises); C.A.C. v. State , 771 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (scratches, swelling, and puncture marks), all of these injuries satisfy Curtis Johnson ’s definition of violent for......
  • United States v. Lee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • 25 avril 2018
    ...(Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (bruises that healed without medical treatment and left no scarring or other lasting effects); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (scratches, swelling and puncture marks for which victim did not receive medical treatment). In short, the defining char......
  • Miller v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 11 décembre 2020
    ...bodily harm; or any instrument likely to cause great bodily harm because of the way it is used during a crime." C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The jury could have easily determined that the stool leg was a deadly weapon based on the way the victim testified that ......
  • Gordon v. State, 3D09–1396.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 30 novembre 2011
    ...to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery.” (citing Owens v. State, 289 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding “great bodily harm” not established for aggravated battery where defendant stabbed victim two or three times wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT