Nelson v. State, No. 87-01125

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPARKER; RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 1355 Archie NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 87-01125
Decision Date31 May 1989

Page 1308

543 So.2d 1308
14 Fla. L. Weekly 1355
Archie NELSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 87-01125.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.
May 31, 1989.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A. Anne Owens, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PARKER, Judge.

Archie Nelson appeals his conviction for resisting an officer without violence. We reverse.

Nelson was convicted of felony petit theft and resisting an officer without violence. The only evidence presented at trial relating to the resisting charge is set forth below. Officers Reece and Swank of the Lakeland Police Department, while on routine patrol, saw Nelson standing near a building with something in his arms. Nelson ran at the sight of the marked police cruiser. Officer Reece testified that he thought it was suspicious for a person to run when observing a police vehicle. For this sole reason, Reece pursued Nelson and found him nearby lying on his stomach inside a fenced area. Nelson furnished his name and address to the officers, when requested, and climbed back over the fence

Page 1309

when the officers asked him to do so. The officers handcuffed Nelson and secured him in the back of the squad car. Then the officers found packages of lunch meat on the ground where Reece had first observed Nelson. Later the officers learned that this lunch meat had been stolen from a convenience store.

Defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, both at the end of the state's case and at the conclusion of the evidence, arguing that there was insufficient identification of Nelson as the person committing the theft. The trial judge denied the motions. On appeal, Nelson argues that his conviction for resisting an officer should be reversed because the undisputed evidence fails to establish a prima facie case of that crime. *

The offense of resisting an officer requires proof that the defendant obstructed or opposed an officer who was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty. § 843.02, Fla.Stat. (1985). When Nelson ran, there was nothing for him to resist. Flight, standing alone, will not justify a stop of an individual by a police officer, Wilson v. State, 433 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), nor will it support a charge of obstructing a police officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty. C.K. v. State, 487 So.2d 93...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Slydell v. State, No. 4D00-1846.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 29, 2001
    ...fundamental error, because no kidnaping occurred, as the child was not tied up or confined. In so ruling, we cited Nelson v. State, 543 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). There, the Second District Court of Appeal found fundamental error in a conviction for resisting an officer without violence......
  • Williams v. State, No. 5D03-1114.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 4, 2005
    ...error, which the appellate court should correct even when no timely objection or motion for acquittal was made below"); Nelson v. State, 543 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing conviction as fundamental error because defendant's conduct did not constitute the crime of which he wa......
  • FB v. State, No. SC02-1156.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 11, 2003
    ...error, which the appellate court should correct even when no timely objection or motion for acquittal was made below"); Nelson v. State, 543 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing conviction as fundamental error because defendant's conduct did not constitute the crime of which he wa......
  • H.R. v. State, No. 3D18-2248
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 12, 2020
    ...error, which the appellate court should correct even when no timely objection or motion for acquittal was made below"); Nelson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1308, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing conviction as fundamental error because defendant's conduct did not constitute the crime of which he w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Slydell v. State, No. 4D00-1846.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 29, 2001
    ...fundamental error, because no kidnaping occurred, as the child was not tied up or confined. In so ruling, we cited Nelson v. State, 543 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). There, the Second District Court of Appeal found fundamental error in a conviction for resisting an officer without violence......
  • Williams v. State, No. 5D03-1114.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 4, 2005
    ...error, which the appellate court should correct even when no timely objection or motion for acquittal was made below"); Nelson v. State, 543 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing conviction as fundamental error because defendant's conduct did not constitute the crime of which he wa......
  • FB v. State, No. SC02-1156.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 11, 2003
    ...error, which the appellate court should correct even when no timely objection or motion for acquittal was made below"); Nelson v. State, 543 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing conviction as fundamental error because defendant's conduct did not constitute the crime of which he wa......
  • H.R. v. State, No. 3D18-2248
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 12, 2020
    ...error, which the appellate court should correct even when no timely objection or motion for acquittal was made below"); Nelson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1308, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing conviction as fundamental error because defendant's conduct did not constitute the crime of which he w......
  • 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