SG v. State, 5D09-2203.

• Decision Date: 26 February 2010
• Docket Number: No. 5D09-2203.,5D09-2203.
• Citation: 29 So.3d 383
• Parties: S.G., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

29 So.3d 383

S.G., A Child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-2203.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

February 26, 2010.

29 So.3d 384

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

S.G. (defendant) appeals her adjudication of delinquency. The State properly concedes that the trial court reversibly erred in reclassifying the defendant's battery conviction from a first degree misdemeanor to a third degree felony. Accordingly, we reverse.

The defendant was charged with committing the crime of battery in violation of section 784.03 of the Florida Statutes (2008), a first degree misdemeanor. The State sought to reclassify the charge to a third degree felony pursuant to section 784.081(2) of the Florida Statutes (2008) based on the fact that the victim of the defendant's crime was a school employee.¹ At trial, testimony established that the defendant engaged in a verbal altercation with another student at the Great Oaks Village youth shelter. A school employee attempted to escort the other student out of the classroom. As the employee was removing the other student, the defendant threw a stapler in the student's direction with the intent to strike the student. However, the stapler struck the employee. The defendant argued that the State's evidence could not elevate the simple battery charge to a felony absent proof of her specific intent to strike the victim.

29 So.3d 385

The court disagreed and found the defendant guilty of battery on a school employee.

The doctrine of transferred intent transfers the defendant's intent as to the intended victim to the unintended victim. Mordica v. State, 618 So.2d 301, 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). However, Florida courts have expressly held that the transferred intent doctrine is inapplicable to enhance the severity of a crime against an unintended victim. See B.L.L. v. State, 764 So.2d 837, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that transferred intent was not applicable when a student intended to strike a fellow student, but instead struck a school employee); D.J. v. State, 651 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (explaining that "only the appellant's intent to strike his opponent—a student—could be transferred, and there could be no intent to strike a school employee"); Sagner v....