D.C. v. State, AM-431
| Decision Date | 09 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AM-431,AM-431 |
| Citation | 436 So.2d 203 |
| Parties | D.C., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Paula S. Saunders, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, for appellant.
Richard A. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This case presents a perfect example of a disturbing societal proclivity toward settling all disputes through resort to a severely overburdened judicial system. In summary, we are asked to review a juvenile court order finding that the defendant, a 13 year old boy, committed the crime of battery when he engaged in a brief scuffle with the alleged victim, an 8 1/2 year old boy. The scuffle, in which neither boy was hurt, began when the defendant tossed a forkfull of ravioli in the direction of the victim and ended a minute or two later with the defendant holding the victim in a loose headlock for several seconds. In between the ravioli and the headlock, various forms of shoving and name calling occurred. We shudder to think what would happen to the wheels of justice if every such childhood scuffle resulted in criminal prosecution. Such matters are best handled on a personal and informal basis, not through the expensive, time-consuming judicial process.
As a result of the above-described "fight," a complaint was filed in juvenile court on March 22, 1982, charging the defendant with battery. As the following chronology demonstrates, this complaint triggered a chain of events which evidences the inappropriateness of injecting the judicial process into common childhood squabbles.
On March 30, 1982, the complaint was referred to an intake counselor at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Pursuant to Section 39.04, Florida Statutes (1981), an intake counselor's job is to review each juvenile case and recommend to the State Attorney the most appropriate action to take. The counselor in the present case deemed it appropriate to refer the defendant to a statutorily authorized community arbitration program specifically designed to handle minor childhood offenses. 1
On April 6, 1982, defendant signed a "Waiver of Rights" form authorizing his On April 21, defendant appeared before the juvenile judge and entered a plea of not guilty to the charges made in the Petition for Delinquency. An adjudicatory hearing was held on April 29 in the Alachua County Courthouse to determine whether defendant had committed the offense of battery and should be adjudicated a delinquent. Witnesses at the hearing consisted of the defendant, the victim, a neighbor who witnessed the incident, and a 14 year old boy who was with the defendant and the victim at the time of the incident.
referral to the arbitration program. On April 14, the counselor sent his recommendation to the State Attorney and filed an Arbitration Referral Notice indicating that defendant had been referred to arbitration. Unfortunately, the counselor's recommendation turned out to be meaningless because the State Attorney, prior to receiving the recommendation, filed a Petition for Delinquency on April 9.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge called the victim and the defendant up to the bench and said:
Judge (speaking to defendant): You're obviously guilty of the offense of battery. You, thirteen, fourteen year old eighth-grader, 125 pounds, picking on a third-grader.... I want a pre-dispositional report to find out what should happen to you in the case, but you owe him an apology.
Defendant: Sorry.
Victim: Accept.
Judge: Wanna shake hands?
Judge (speaking to victim): I gotta give you credit kid, you came back fighting. You're spunky.
Judge (speaking to defendant): Next time you want to get into a ravioli thing, get somebody [your own size].
On May 5, 1982, a predisposition report was prepared by the intake counselor at HRS who had originally reviewed defendant's case. His findings are summed up as follows:
The court is faced with a young man who has never been in trouble before. The court has determined that a battery does indeed exist. However, I can't help but reflect upon the circumstances of this alleged battery. The victim was not injured. There were no blows exchanged. The parents of the victim refused to discuss the incident with the alleged perpetrator and his parents. I had hoped initially that judicial involvement could be avoided in this case. However, since judicial disposition is at hand I would recommend, as I did initially, that [the defendant] be referred to the [community arbitration program] with withheld adjudication for arbitration purposes. I would hope that resolution of this matter would be quickly found.
Based upon this report, the judge entered an order on May 12 finding that the defendant committed the offense of battery, withholding adjudication of delinquency, and referring the defendant and the victim to the community arbitration program. The order also required the parents of both the defendant and the victim to attend the arbitration sessions. 2 On June 11, defendant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.
The defendant raises basically two points on appeal. His first argument is that the criminal count of battery, as described in Section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1981), is not intended to proscribe or punish harmless child's play which does not cause injury. While we agree that defendant's conduct in this case is more properly dealt with outside the context of criminal law, we cannot impose our preferences on the discretion of the trial judge, particularly in light of the clear language of Section 784.03 The defendant's second point on appeal is that he acted in self-defense. There is competent and substantial evidence to show that the defendant was the aggressor; therefore, this point is without merit.
which states that a person commits criminal battery if he "actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other." The defendant has not referred us to any case law holding that the degree of injury caused by an intentional touching is relevant to determining whether a criminal battery has been committed; rather, it is clear from Section 784.03 that any intentional touching of another person against such person's will is technically a criminal battery. The trial judge acted within his discretion in finding that the defendant committed the offense of battery. 3
Although the trial judge correctly found that the defendant committed the offense of battery, he disposed of the case in a manner not authorized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Obregon
...that any intentional touching of another person against such person's will is technically a criminal battery." D.C. v. State , 436 So. 2d 203, 206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). But in Kansas, whether a touching amounts to battery turns on the manner in which it is done. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. ......
-
Capron v. State
...a person under sixteen years of age. In order to commit any kind of battery, there must be a touching. See generally D.C. v. State, 436 So.2d 203, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (stating that "any intentional touching of another person against such person's will is technically a criminal battery")......
-
State v. Hearns
...clear that any intentional touching, no matter how slight, is sufficient to constitute a simple battery. See, e.g., D.C. v. State, 436 So.2d 203, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) ("[I]t is clear from Section 784.03 that any intentional touching of another person against such person's will is technic......
-
Smith v. Taylor County Pub. Co., Inc., AN-103
...article complained of in this case can be actionable. This case is similar in one major respect to the "ravioli case," D.C. v. State, 436 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Although the "ravioli case" involved one child throwing ravioli at another, while this case involves older persons throwin......