Tash v. Rogers ex rel. E.R.
| Citation | 246 So.3d 1304 (Mem) |
| Decision Date | 09 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D17–2861,1D17–2861 |
| Parties | Aron C. TASH, Appellant, v. Aaron J. ROGERS o/b/o Minor Child E.R., Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
246 So.3d 1304 (Mem)
Aron C. TASH, Appellant,
v.
Aaron J. ROGERS o/b/o Minor Child E.R., Appellee.
No. 1D17–2861
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 9, 2018
Chris M. Pratt, Palmetto, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
B.L. Thomas, C.J.
Aron Tash appeals a final judgment granting a permanent injunction for protection against repeat violence in favor of Appellee, Aaron Rogers, and his daughter, E.R. We reverse.
Rogers is married to Appellant's ex-wife, and the record demonstrates the discordant relationship between the two men and their families; however, the record does not support a finding that Appellant committed two incidents of violence against Rogers, E.R., or another member of their immediate family within the meaning of section 784.046(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017). "Violence" is defined as "any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death ...." § 784.046(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). "Repeat violence" is defined as "two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner's immediate family member." § 784.046(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2017).
As we have previously held, "[c]ompetent, substantial evidence must support the trial court's finding that two incidents of repeat violence occurred." Russell v. Doughty , 28 So.3d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Shocki v. Aresty, 994 So.2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ; Clement v. Ziemer, 953 So.2d 700, 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ; Santiago v. Towle, 917 So.2d 909, 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ).
The record here contains allegations of three incidents involving Appellant and
Rogers or E.R. In the first incident, the evidence established that Appellant spit in Rogers' face and threatened to kill him. Because intentionally spitting in a person's face constitutes battery, see, e.g. , Mohansingh v. State , 824 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), this incident qualified as one of the requisite acts of violence, although it occurred more than six months...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hicks v. State
-
Earven v. State
...fear element, as long as ‘a reasonable person would experience a well-founded fear of imminent harm.’ " (quoting Tash v. Rogers , 246 So. 3d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) )). That said, we recognize that the appropriateness of instructing the jury on an objective standard in circumstances ......
-
Daniels v. State
...of the fear element, as long as "a reasonable person would experience a well-founded fear of imminent harm." Tash v. Rogers , 246 So. 3d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ("Appellate courts apply an objective standard in determining whether a reasonable person would experience a well-founded f......
- Boston v. State, 1D17-5190