Street v. State, 54121
| Decision Date | 20 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 54121,54121 |
| Citation | 383 So.2d 900 |
| Parties | Turner STREET and David Street, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Stephen R. Keroff of Keller & Keroff, Palm Beach, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The appellants were convicted, following jury trial, of the offense of battery upon a law enforcement officer, a felony under Section 784.07, Florida Statutes (1977). The trial court passed upon the constitutional validity of the statute when it denied the appellants' motions to dismiss, so their appeal lies to this Court. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.
The appellants argue that improper instructions were given to the jury with regard to what the state was required to prove, but since there was no objection or request for instructions by the defense below, this contention will not be considered now.
The appellants contend that the statute violates equal protection by the special treatment it gives to police officers as victims of batteries. This issue has been resolved in favor of the statute's validity. Soverino v. State, 356 So.2d 269 (Fla.1978).
The appellants contend that as a matter of law the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. Our review of the record reveals that this contention is without merit.
Appellants contend that the statute fails to give sufficient warning as to what conduct will render a person liable to prosecution for the felony created thereby as opposed to prosecution for ordinary battery. The statute, however, has a scienter requirement. State v. Bailey, 360 So.2d 772 (Fla.1978). It requires that the accused know that his victim is a law enforcement officer or firefighter. Appellants argue that the phrase "engaged in the lawful performance of his duties" is vague and raise the question of whether a policeman who is using excessive force is so engaged. But the use of unlawful force by a police officer, giving rise to a right of self-defense, would not relate to the matter of sufficient notice but would be a defense to the battery charge itself. As a matter of common understanding and practice, the statute conveys sufficiently definite warning as to what is proscribed. Zachary v. State, 269 So.2d 669 (Fla.1972).
Finally, appellants argue that the statute violates due process by overbreadth, in that it could be applied to conduct that should only be punished...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polite v. State
...of this offense even though section 784.07(2) lacks specific language to that effect. See Thompson, 695 So.2d at 692; Street v. State, 383 So.2d 900, 900 (Fla. 1980).10 The language of section 784.07 is almost identical to that of section 843.01—both statutes include the word "knovvingly," ......
-
Baker v. State
...officer capital offense), and affords a rational basis for the reclassification of a crime to a higher offense, see, e.g., Street v. State, 383 So.2d 900 (Fla.1980) (Section 784.07, Florida Statutes, making battery upon a law enforcement officer a felony, does not violate equal protection c......
-
Wilkerson v. State
...appellant's conduct was clearly proscribed by the statute, appellant does not have standing to make an overbreadth attack. Street v. State, 383 So.2d 900 (Fla.1980); State v. Ashcraft, 378 So.2d 284 (Fla.1979). Appellant has raised some difficult questions concerning the applicability of th......
-
State v. Young
...performance of his or her duties," and reclassifying upward the degree of the assault or battery). In the first opinion, Street v. State, 383 So.2d 900 (Fla.1980), the defendants were convicted of battery upon a law enforcement officer. See id. The Streets argued that section 784.07 failed ......