Lukaszewski v. State

Decision Date08 April 2013
Docket NumberNo. 1D12–3600.,1D12–3600.
Citation111 So.3d 212
PartiesBrent Matthew LUKASZEWSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Kara Fenlon, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Virginia Chester Harris and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ROWE, J.

Brent Lukaszewski appeals his conviction and sentence for felony cruelty to animals in violation of section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2011). Lukaszewski argues that the trial court erred in ruling the evidence was sufficient to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal, asserting that 1) the evidence was insufficient to show that his actions were not necessary as discipline or training of his dog; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to show repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. We affirm Lukaszewski's conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence in this case was legally sufficient for the jury to find that the elements of the crime were met.

A trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo. Gibson v. State, 940 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002)). In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the appellate court must consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to the state. Id. “Legal sufficiency alone, as opposed to evidentiary weight, is the appropriate concern of an appellate tribunal.” Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981). Where the state has presented evidence to support each element of the crime, a motion for judgment of acquittal must be denied. See State v. Williams, 742 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

To establish the elements of felony cruelty to animals under section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes (2011), the state was required to present competent substantial evidence to show that Lukaszewski committed an intentional act which resulted in “the excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering” to the dog. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 29.13. Section 828.12(2), provides that [a] person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree....” Because section 828.12(2) is a general intent statute, it does not require intent to be cruel, but only intent to commit the act that results in the cruelty. Reynolds v. State, 784 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Lukaszewski's neighbor, an eyewitness, testified that he heard a dog whining and yelping and that it sounded like an animal in distress. He went to see what was going on after about ten minutes of yelling and barking, and he “saw the dog was tied up, hanging on—just standing on two feet, was tied up around the neck, on [what] looked like an old washing pole for the backyard, and just had [the dog] tied up by the collar, and it was hanging there.” The neighbor testified that he saw Lukaszewski strike the dog in the ribs with a two by four, and the dog looked scared and “in a good bit of pain” while she was hanging there. The neighbor testified that when he confronted Lukaszewski about abusing his dog, Lukaszewski replied that it was his dog and he could do with it as he pleased.

An investigating officer testified that Lukaszewski told him that his dog went to the bathroom on the floor and he could not let that go; he took the dog outside, put a rope around the dog's neck, and hung the rope over a tree limb; he cinched the rope tightly enough to keep the dog from escaping; and then he “spanked the dog on the butt with a piece of two by four.” Lukaszewski testified at trial that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Knight v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2015
    ...evidence in a light most favorable to the State.” Perez v. State, 138 So.3d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Lukaszewski v. State, 111 So.3d 212, 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ). Where, as here, a conviction is based wholly on circumstantial evidence, the conviction “cannot be sustained unl......
  • Houk v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 2021
    ...828.12(2) "does not require intent to be cruel, but only intent to commit the act that results in the cruelty." Lukaszewski v. State , 111 So. 3d 212, 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; see also State v. Avella , 275 So. 3d 207, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) ("[ Section 828.12(2) ] does not require a spec......
  • Perez v. State, 1D13–1577.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 2014
    ...must consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. Lukaszewski v. State, 111 So.3d 212, 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2011), provides in part that “[w]hoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any of......
  • Krupkin v. State, 1D12–4503.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 2013
    ...1st DCA 2013) (“We review a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss under a de novo standard of review.”); Lukaszewski v. State, 111 So.3d 212, 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“A trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo.”). 2. The 2009, 2010, and 2011 vers......
  • 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