State v. Gee, 92-03918
| Decision Date | 06 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-03918,92-03918 |
| Citation | 624 So.2d 284 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D1744 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James E. GEE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol M. Dittmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Angelo M. Ferlita, Ferlita, Nutter & Rosello, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
In this aggravated battery prosecution, the state appeals the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to dismiss. We reverse.
The facts of this case, as related in defendant's motion, are not in dispute. A crowded barroom confrontation culminated with defendant striking the victim with a single blow to the right side of his face, causing him to fall to the floor. Though the blow itself did not break any bones or knock out any teeth, the victim, upon falling down, suffered a broken neck and complete paralysis from either striking his head on a stage or being kicked in the head by an unknown person.
Defendant was charged with aggravated battery, a specific intent crime requiring the intent to cause great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement. Sec. 784.045(1)(a)1, Fla.Stat. (1991); Knott v. State, 573 So.2d 179, 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We conclude that in this case a jury question existed over whether defendant had the requisite specific intent. As this court noted in State v. Stenza, 453 So.2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), intent is generally a jury question that in most instances cannot be ascertained by direct evidence but only inferred and is therefore not properly determined on a motion to dismiss.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zellars v. State, 97-364
...intervention of another man. We think the question of his intent in this case was properly resolvable by the jury. See State v. Gee, 624 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. Stenza, 453 So.2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fletcher v. State, 472 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1985). However, we revers......
-
State v. Franchi, 98-2596.
...from the acts of the parties and surrounding circumstances. See State v. Hart, 677 So.2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); State v. Gee, 624 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. J.T.S., 373 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), overruled on other grounds by D.K.D. v. State, 470 So.2d 1387 (Fla.1985); Stat......
-
Williams v. State
...a fractured left eye. The jury saw pictures of Emmanuel's beaten face. Because Williams' intent was a jury question, State v. Gee, 624 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ("[I]ntent is generally a jury question that in most instances cannot be ascertained by direct evidence but only inferred ......
-
Montero v. State
...injuries," the "circumstances peculiar to each situation," the "amount of force used," and "the manner of attack." State v. Gee, 624 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ; McKnight v. State, 492 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Even a single punch to the face, reviewing these factors, can b......