CHAVNEY C. GANT A/K/A RODERICK WHITE, 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.
Gant was charged with robbery with a firearm but convicted by jury of the lesser included offense of robbery. On appeal, Gant argued the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove the victim was placed in imminent fear. The appellate court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the victim was placed in fear of great bodily harm.
Yes. The appellate court affirmed the robbery conviction, holding that the state presented sufficient evidence that the victim was placed in fear of great bodily harm. The jury's acquittal on robbery with a firearm does not negate the necessary finding that the victim was placed in fear of bodily harm, which is all the state must prove for a robbery conviction.
[1] A conviction for robbery requires proof that the victim was placed in fear of bodily harm.
[2] Evidence of a victim's fear of bodily harm during a robbery can be established by the circumstances of the offense and the victim's direct testimony.
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“All the state must prove in such a case is that the victim was placed in fear of bodily harm.”
Establishes the legal standard for robbery—fear of bodily harm is the essential element, separate from proof of a firearm
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMills was walking his bike through Winter Park at 2:00 a.m. when Gant confronted him and asked the time. Gant quickly pulled out a small handgun and d…
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 Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Gant argues the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove the victim (Mills) had been put in “imminent fear” by Gant’s threatening him with a firearm. Gant was charged with robbery with a firearm.1 However, the jury found Gant only guilty of the lesser included offense of robbery.2 We affirm.
Mills testified at trial that he went for a bike ride through Winter Park, Florida, late at night (2:00 a.m.). He is a large man,3 and is not usually concerned for his own safety. While walking his bike across an intersection, he was confronted by Gant, who asked what time it was.
Mills testified “|j]ust as quickly as that, he pulled out a weapon and said, ‘give me your money.’ ” Mills described it as a small hand gun. But he also testified it was dark, so he only saw the outline of the gun. Gant was then three and one-half to four feet away from Mills. Gant pointed the gun at Mills’ head.
Mills also testified he was afraid he was going to be shot. Mills had little money with him, and he considered it would not be enough to satisfy the robber. Mills recalled similar situations where people being held-up were shot.
Mills decided to run and get shot in the back trying to escape. He shoved the bicycle at Gant, turned and ran. Mills heard Gant yelling at him. Mills saw Gant continue to point the gun at him, as he sprinted back to Highway 17-92, approximately three-fourths of a mile away. Mills testified he was in fear for his life.
We agree with the state that it presented sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s necessary finding that Mills was'placed in fear of great bodily harm at the time he was robbed. The fact that the jury found Gant was not guilty of robbery with a firearm is not relevant to the charge of robbery. All the state must prove in such a case is that the victim was placed in fear of bodily harm. Taylor v. State, 138 Fla. 762, 190 So. 262 (1939); Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Rolle v. State, 268 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The circumstances and Mills’ direct testimony in this case amply sustain the jury’s finding in this regard.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . § 812.12(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. § 812.13, Fla.Stat. (1991).
.Mills is 6'4" and weighs 245 pounds.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aldine Taylor v. State, 138 Fla. 762 (Fla. 1939)
- Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Rolle v. State, 268 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)