EDDIE LEE GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Eddie Lee Gray was convicted of resisting arrest without violence after refusing to be taken into custody by officers attempting to arrest him on a contempt of court order issued by a court commissioner. The appellate court reversed, holding that court commissioners lack authority to order arrest or incarceration, meaning the officers were not engaged in lawful execution of a legal duty, an essential element of the resisting arrest charge.
Court commissioners lack statutory or common law authority to adjudicate contempt or order arrest and incarceration. Because the lawful execution of a legal duty by officers is a necessary element of the resisting arrest without violence charge under Florida Statute § 843.02, and that element cannot be satisfied here, Gray's conviction cannot stand and is reversed with directions to discharge.
[1] A general or special master appointed by circuit judges lacks the statutory authority to adjudicate a litigant in contempt of court or to order their arrest or incarcerat…
[2] An arrest made without lawful authority means officers attempting the arrest are not engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find nothing in the statutes, rules or case law which clothes the general or special master with the power to adjudicate a litigant in contempt of court or to order him arrested or incarcerated”
Establishes that court commissioners lack authority to order contempt adjudication and arrest
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGray was summoned to appear before a court commissioner regarding unpaid child support. After the hearing, the commissioner found Gray in contempt, or…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lawful Execution Of A Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
We vacate the prior opinion issued in this case and substitute the following in its place.
The defendant appeals from a conviction of resisting arrest without violence. We reverse.
Defendant had been summoned to appear before Commissioner Harvey Alper, a general or special master appointed by the Seminole County circuit judges, to answer his former wife’s complaint that he was behind in his child support payments. At the conclusion of the hearing, Alper determined that defendant was behind in his payments, that he had the ability to pay and was therefore in contempt of court. The commissioner further advised defendant that he would be incarcerated for 15 days unless he purged himself of contempt by paying the amount due, or, if he wanted a hearing before a judge, he would be held in jail until a hearing could be arranged. When appellant resisted being taken into custody, he was subdued by two officers, arrested and charged with two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer and two counts of resisting arrest with violence.
At trial, the jury acquitted defendant on the battery charges and on the charge of resisting arrest with violence, but convicted him of resisting arrest without violence.1 Over defendant’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury, as a matter of law, that taking the defendant into custody constituted the lawful execution of a legal duty by the officers. This was error. We find nothing in the statutes, rules or case law which clothes the general or special master with the power to adjudicate a litigant in contempt of court or to order him arrested or incarcerated, and we are cited to no such authority by the parties here. Therefore, the master had no authority to order the appellant arrested, and in attempting to arrest appellant, the officers were not engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty.
Ordinarily, a reversal of a conviction because of an erroneous instruction would result in a new trial. However, because the defendant was acquitted of resisting arrest with violence, he cannot be tried again on that charge, and because the lawful execution of a legal duty by the officer is a necessary ingredient in the charge of resisting arrest without violence, § 843.02, Fla.Stat. (1985), an element which is not present here, the conviction for that offense cannot stand, so we reverse the judgment of conviction with directions to discharge the defendant.
REVERSED.
COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . At defendant’s specific request, the trial court instructed the jury that resisting arrest without violence was a lesser included offense of resisting arrest with violence, and the jury convicted on the "lesser" offense. This instruction was erroneous, see Benjamin v. State, 462 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), but in light of our conclusion here, the error is moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sencoa Damair Crawford v. Dep't OF Revenue & Tanisha Charmia Watson, 219 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…. The hearing officer, unlike the circuit court judge, is neither a constitutional officer nor a member of the judiciary. Thus, a hearing officer lacks the authority either to enter an order of contempt or to order incarceration. See Gray v. State, 489 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (finding a special master lacked the authority to order a former husband’s arrest for failure to pay support, and thus the former husband’s conviction for resisting that arrest without violence could not stand). Here, the hearin…
Authorities Cited
- Benjamin v. State, 462 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)