Smith v. State, 77-1224
| Decision Date | 18 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1224,77-1224 |
| Citation | 357 So.2d 482 |
| Parties | Thomas SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.
The defendant appeals an adjudication of guilt of the crimes of aggravated assault and the unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. The judgment was entered on a jury verdict. The single point presented urges that the court erred in denying defendant's motions for a judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the State's case and at the conclusion of all the evidence.
The burden of defendant's argument is that there was no proof of criminal intent sufficient to sustain the conviction. Defendant confessed and later testified that he shot the victim during a domestic argument. His testimony was that he was only trying to scare the victim and that he shot her accidentally. Proof of intent may be supplied by the circumstances. Skold v. State, 263 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Cf. DuPree v. State, 310 So.2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harmon v. State, No. 1D07-2979.
...the trial court erred by not permitting Appellant to testify about his intent at the time of the charged offense. See Smith v. State, 357 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) and Crutchfield v. State, 589 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, these errors were not preserved by Appellant presenti......