JEANBART
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. | 2015-05-31
1 FLCA 4239 Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Appellate Division (2015)

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.

Synopsis

JeanBart was convicted of Domestic Battery following a jury trial where evidence of two separate altercations was presented to support a single charge. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding it fundamental error to present evidence of multiple distinct incidents to prove one battery charge without ensuring jury unanimity as to which incident constituted the offense.


Holding

Presenting evidence of two separate altercations to support a single battery charge is fundamental error. The conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial because the verdict form failed to ensure jury unanimity regarding which altercation constituted the offense.


Headnotes

[1] Presenting evidence of multiple distinct criminal acts to support a single charge of battery constitutes fundamental error.

[2] A conviction for "domestic violence battery" is improper as it is a nonexistent offense.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“Defendant argues that presenting evidence of two separate altercations separated in time to support a single charge of Battery constituted fundamental error. Defendant is correct.”

Establishes the core holding that presenting evidence of multiple distinct incidents to prove one battery charge is fundamental error.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

JeanBart was charged with Domestic Battery. At trial, the State presented testimony from the victim Gregory Narcisse and witness Matthew Narcisse (Jea…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Danielle Grundt, Assistant State Attorney 401 North Dixie Highway, Room 1600 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 [email protected]

PER CURIAM.

Upon confession of error for failure to ensure a unanimous verdict this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The State charged Defendant by information with "Domestic Battery." The case proceeded to a one-day jury trial. At trial, the State presented two witnesses: the victim, Gregory Narcisse ("Gregory") and Matthew Narcisse ("Matthew"), Gregory and Defendant's younger brother. Gregory essentially testified that Defendant attacked him on two different occasions. Matthew testified that Defendant and Gregory fought twice on the day in question, Defendant instigated the fights, and he saw Defendant attack Gregory during the second altercation. The defense presented only one witness-Defendant. Defendant's version of events differed considerably; he testified that he did not attack Gregory and insinuated that Gregory had fabricated the story out of jealousy. After deliberating, the jury found Defendant guilty of "Domestic Battery," but used a verdict form that did not differentiate between the first and second altercation. The Court adjudicated Defendant guilty of "Domestic Battery" and sentenced him to 180 days in the Palm Beach County Jail. This timely appeal followed shortly thereafter. Defendant argues that presenting evidence of two separate altercations separated in time to support a single charge of Battery constituted fundamental error. Defendant is correct. See Chaffin v. State, 121 So. 3d 608, 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Perley v. State, 947 So. 2d 672, 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The State also concedes error. Accordingly, the matter is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

KELLEY, J. MARX, and KASTRENAKES, JJ., concur. N 1 The Court declines to address any of the other issues raised, but notes that if after being retried Defendant is again found guilty, his judgment should reflect the charge of Battery rather than "Domestic Battery." See Crockett v. State, 91 So. 3d 872, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (noting that "domestic violence battery" is a nonexistent offense and defendant should have been adjudicated guilty of Battery).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw