G.T.J. v. State

• Decision Date: 07 November 2008
• Docket Number: No. 2D07-3386.,2D07-3386.
• Citation: 994 So.2d 1182
• Parties: G.T.J., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

994 So.2d 1182

G.T.J., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D07-3386.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 7, 2008.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Alisa Smith, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Fraim Hogge, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

CANADY, CHARLES T., Associate Judge.

G.T.J. appeals a juvenile probation order and order withholding adjudication of delinquency for the delinquent acts of assault and battery. Because we conclude that the State failed to rebut G.T.J.'s prima facie case of self-defense and therefore failed to carry its burden to prove the delinquent offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse and remand.

The undisputed evidence reflects that: (1) G.T.J. was outside an apartment occupied by Francisco Hernandes and Guadalupe Miranda; (2) at some point, an altercation ensued between Hernandes and Miranda and G.T.J. and his friend; (3) Hernandes and Miranda chased G.T.J.; (4) G.T.J. turned and struck one of the victims in the face with a stick; and (5) G.T.J. swung his belt at Hernandes and Miranda, but missed.

Hernandes and Miranda testified that they heard something striking the front door of their apartment and that when they went outside, they spotted G.T.J. and another boy hiding behind a van. G.T.J. was seen holding a rod. Both Hernandes and Miranda testified that they began chasing G.T.J. in order to catch him and hold him until the police arrived. While Miranda initially testified that G.T.J. "started hitting" as soon as the men came out, he later clarified that when he came out of the apartment, G.T.J. was hiding and Miranda began chasing him. Hernandes testified that it was only after he began chasing G.T.J. that G.T.J. hit him with the rod. Then G.T.J. took off his belt and swung it at both men. Although neither Hernandes nor Miranda were hit by the belt, Miranda testified he was scared because G.T.J. "was aggressive."

G.T.J. testified that he and a friend were walking past the apartment and the front door was open. G.T.J. testified that his friend said something in Spanish to Hernandes and Miranda and that at that point, Hernandes came "rushing" at G.T.J. with a knife. G.T.J. testified that when Hernandes began swinging the knife, G.T.J. began running. According to G.T.J., Hernandes and Miranda began chasing after him so he picked up the rod. G.T.J. testified that he swung the rod at both men and that when Hernandes put his hand out "like he was going to swing, . . . [I] hit him." G.T.J. testified that one of the men started choking him while the other man grabbed his pants causing his belt to "pop" off. At that point, G.T.J. testified that he "took the belt off and started swinging it at them." G.T.J. subsequently explained that "I was just trying to run from them, because I didn't know what else they were going to do" and that he hit Hernandes because "they w[ere] coming after me[.]" Although G.T.J. at one point testified he was not afraid of Hernandes and Miranda, he later clarified that he was scared when Hernandes had the knife. On cross-examination, G.T.J. testified he swung the rod at the men "so they would back up." On redirect, G.T.J. was asked why he hit Hernandes with the rod and G.T.J. responded that "it was self-defense."

Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy Robert Brush testified he responded to the scene and saw G.T.J. running. Brush commanded G.T.J. to stop, and G.T.J. complied. Brush testified that when he questioned G.T.J., G.T.J. told him that a Mexican guy came out yelling, that he [G.T.J.] was being chased by the two men, and that he hit one of the men because he was protecting himself.

Both at the close of the State's case and at the close of the defense's case, defense counsel moved for judgment of dismissal, arguing in relevant part that the State failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence that G.T.J. was acting in self-defense. The trial court denied the motion. This was error.

A trial court's decision on a motion for judgment of dismissal is subject to de novo review. E.A.B. v. State, 851 So.2d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). On such a motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State, but if the State fails to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of the crime charged, then a judgment of dismissal is proper. Id. (citing Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.110(k); Tillman v. State, 842 So.2d 922, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).

"[W]hen [a] defendant presents a prima facie case of self-defense, the State's burden includes `proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.'" Fowler v. State, 921 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Thompson v. State,...