State v. Hudson, 80-1936
| Decision Date | 24 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1936,80-1936 |
| Citation | 397 So.2d 426 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Patrick Wilson HUDSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Judith L. James, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a charge of sexual battery.
The state charged appellee with committing sexual battery in the course of which he used physical force and violence not likely to cause serious personal injury in violation of section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (1979). He filed a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) and predicated it upon the facts set forth in the deposition of the victim. Following a hearing, the court granted the motion.
According to her deposition, the victim, a twenty-seven year old woman, was hitchhiking to the Carousel Apartments to go swimming with some friends. She was wearing a sundress over a bathing suit. Appellee, with whom she was not acquainted, offered to give her a ride to her destination. Instead, he drove her to a dead-end cul-de-sac where he began to make advances. He tried to kiss her and made several unsuccessful efforts to pull her skirt up. He told her that she had better let him have his way or he would hurt her. As a ruse to ward him off, she told him she had an apartment at the Carousel Apartments and that it would be safer if they went there.
The victim further testified that instead of going to the apartments appellee drove to a more lonely area. There he started grabbing her and unsuccessfully tried to pull down her bikini pants. At his command, she got out of the car. He then dragged her around the car and told her to lie down. He threatened to hurt her again and his voice shook as if he was in a state of agitation. She tried to talk him out of his objective, but when he refused to be dissuaded, she lay down. Without a struggle, she submitted to intercourse which, she said, hurt "a little bit." At no time did appellee exhibit or refer to a weapon. Upon her release, she went to the Carousel Apartments where she immediately called the police.
At the outset it is well to remember that the function of a dismissal under rule 3.190(c)(4) is to eliminate only those cases in which the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. Therefore, in passing upon a motion to dismiss, the court should view the facts in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Davis, 243 So.2d 587 (Fla.1971). The court should not weigh the evidence or determine its credibility. State v. Bryant, 373 So.2d 708 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). If reasonable men could find guilt, a jury question results, and the motion to dismiss should be denied. State v. Hires, 372 So.2d 183 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
As in prosecutions under the old rape statutes, the state must prove the use of physical force which overcomes the will of the victim in order to convict a defendant of sexual battery under section 794.011(5). Admittedly, the only evidence in this case of physical force which appellee applied directly to the victim prior to intercourse consisted of his grabbing at her, seeking to pull off her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shrader v. State
...Motion for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc (Sept. 22, 2016) (citing Bradford v. State, 460 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) ; State v. Hudson, 397 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) ). On November 9, 2016, the panel granted the State's motion for panel rehearing. But the panel's order did not vacate i......
-
State v. Amaro
...most favorable to the state and only where they do not establish such a prima facie case should dismissal be granted. State v. Hudson, 397 So.2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). In dismissing the third degree murder charge, the conclusion of the trial court was that the appellees' participation in t......
-
State v. Carda, 85-1858
...in dispute and required denial of the defendant's motion. See State v. Patel, 453 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Hudson, 397 So.2d 426, 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Ellis v. State, 346 So.2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 175 (Fla.1977); State v. Giesy, 243 So.2......
-
Shrader v. State
..."[q]uestions of consent, force, resistance, and fear are particularly within the province of the jury to determine." State v. Hudson, 397 So. 2d 426, 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (emphasis added) (citing Berezovsky v. State, 335 So. 2d 592, 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), rev'd in part on other grounds, ......