State v. Robinson, 78-757
| Decision Date | 13 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-757,78-757 |
| Citation | 379 So.2d 712 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Brenda Louise ROBINSON, Appellee. /NT4-69. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Douglas Cheshire, Jr., State's Atty. and Norman A. Tharp, Asst. State's Atty., Titusville, for appellant.
David M. Porter, Public Defender, Titusville, and Joan H. Bickerstaff, Asst. Public Defender, Cocoa, for appellee.
Appellee, Brenda Louise Robinson, was charged in Count II of an amended information with resisting, obstructing or opposing a municipal police officer, George T. Stenzel, in the lawful performance of a legal duty by offering or doing violence to the person of George T. Stenzel, by striking said officer with a blackjack contrary to Section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1977). 1
Upon motion of appellee under the provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the trial judge dismissed Count II of the amended information based on his finding as a matter of law that George T. Stenzel, an off-duty uniformed Melbourne Policeman hired by the Melbourne Jai Alai Fronton, was not engaged in the lawful performance of his duties at the time of the alleged offense. This is an appeal by the state from the order dismissing Count II of the amended information.
The factual basis for the charge contained in the dismissed count as disclosed by a stipulated statement of facts included in the Record on Appeal is not in dispute.
On January 9, 1978, George T. Stenzel, a police officer of the City of Melbourne was working during off-duty hours as security officer at the Melbourne Jai Alai Fronton. His duties as security officer consisted of checking birthdate identifications and overlooking the general peace and quiet at the fronton. His wages were paid entirely by the fronton management. The Melbourne Jai Alai Fronton is within the city limits of Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida.
On that night Officer Stenzel and other off-duty Melbourne police officers hired by the fronton were wearing their Melbourne Police Department uniforms complete with badge and weapon. This part-time employment and the wearing of uniforms had been approved by the Melbourne Police Department authorities.
At about 7:30 of the evening in question a group of two men and two women (one of whom was appellee Brenda Louise Robinson) entered the front door of the fronton. Officer Stenzel was present when two other off-duty Melbourne policemen, Sgt. Young and Sgt. Malone, similarly employed by the fronton as part-time security officers, requested to see the identification of one of the men, who appeared to the officers to be too young to be admitted to the fronton. This man who will be referred to as the "first man" failed to produce identification as requested and was told either to produce identification proving his age or leave the fronton. After an argument the first man went outside to get his money back.
The other members of the group continued the argument during which the second man grabbed Sgt. Young. A scuffle ensued and the second man was placed under arrest for trespass. Sgt. Young, assisted by Sgt. Malone, escorted the arrested man from the fronton. They proceeded outside where they attempted to handcuff the arrested man. The first man reappeared and attempted to pull the officers away from the arrested man. Officer Stenzel came to the assistance of Sgt. Malone and Sgt. Young. While they were scuffling the appellee Brenda Louise Robinson removed a blackjack from Sgt. Malone's rear pocket with which she struck Officer Stenzel several times.
The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether Officer Stenzel was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty at the time appellee Brenda Louise Robinson struck him with a blackjack. We hold that under the circumstances disclosed by the stipulated statement of facts the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty and reverse.
In ruling that Officer Stenzel was not engaged in the lawful execution of his duties at the time he was assaulted, the trial judge relied on the case of Soverino v. State, 356 So.2d 269 (Fla.1978), 2 wherein it is stated:
. . . Because the public welfare is protected by the performance of these duties, the legislature in its wisdom has chosen to accord greater protection to one who performs these indispensable public services. When an officer is not performing his official duties, he is no longer protecting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Graham, 63705-9
...widely held that a police officer is not relieved of his or her obligation to preserve the peace while off duty"); State v. Robinson, 379 So.2d 712 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.) (a full time police officer is authorized during off-duty hours at the discretion of his superior officers to carry firearms......
-
State v. Iaccarino
...significant of all, the whole arrangement was effected in cooperation with the Des Moines Police Department."); State v. Robinson, 379 So.2d 712, 713 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding that an off-duty police officer who worked security at Jai Alai was an instrument of the state when the officer ......
-
Salt Lake City v. Christensen, 20060006-CA.
...discharging the duties of their office when they intervened to breakup a disturbance on the employer's premises); State v. Robinson, 379 So.2d 712, 713-15 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.) (holding that a police officer privately employed as a security officer was engaged in the lawful execution of his la......
-
Mitchell v. State
...into evidence to demonstrate that the victim, a police officer, was under a duty to apprehend felons at all times. See State v. Robinson, 379 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1117 We find no reversible error in the trial court's instruction to the jury that the State need n......