J. M. C. AND D. P. S., JUVENILES, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Two juvenile appellants were adjudicated delinquent for assault violations arising from an incident where they attacked a victim. The appellate court affirmed the delinquency findings, holding that a stick qualifies as a deadly weapon when used to knock a victim to the ground, and that both appellants could be held responsible for injuries inflicted during the altercation.
The court held that a stick is a deadly weapon when it is large enough to knock a victim to the ground, making the aggravated assault finding appropriate. The court also held that J.M.C.'s physical contact with the victim supports the assault and battery conviction, and that D.P.S. can be held liable as an aider and abettor for cuts inflicted by her companions.
[1] Whether a weapon used in an assault is deadly is a question of fact for the trier of fact.
[2] A stick can be considered a deadly weapon if it is large enough to cause significant injury.
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“The gist of the crime of aggravated assault is found in the character of the weapon with which the assault is made, i. e. whether it is deadly or not, and there is no requirement for the addition of a specific intent over and above that required for simple assault.”
Establishes that aggravated assault requires only that a deadly weapon be used; no additional specific intent beyond simple assault is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Phillips became involved in a verbal altercation with appellant J.M.C. and her sister. Subsequently, Mr. Phillips was surrounded by five or six t…
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 Aider And Abettor cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of their adjudications of delinquency for violations of § 784.04, Fla.Stat. The victim, Mrs. Phillips, became involved in a verbal altercation with the appellant J.M.C. and her sister. Subsequently, Mr. Phillips was surrounded by five or six teenage girls and a fight ensued during which J.M.C. kicked or attempted to kick Mrs. Phillips. Appellant D.P.S. observed J.M.C. and Mrs. Phillips fighting and she struck Mrs. Phillips on the back with a stick causing her to fall down. While lying helpless on the ground Mrs. Phillips was cut by the girls who fled after the police were called. As a result of this incident, J.M.C. was adjudicated delinquent for assault with a deadly weapon [§ 784.04, Fla.Stat.] and D.P.S. was so adjudicated for assault and battery with a deadly weapon [§ 784.04, Fla.Stat.].
D.P.S. contends there is no evidence that she cut Mrs. Phillips and a stick is not a deadly weapon. Therefore, the finding of guilt as to aggravated assault was erroneous.
The gist of the crime of aggravated assault is found in the character of the weapon with which the assault is made, i. e. whether it is deadly or not, and there is no requirement for the addition of a specific intent over and above that required for simple assault. Goswick v. State, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 817; Bass v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 25. Further, whether or not the particular weapon in an assault case is to be classified as deadly or not is a factual question to be determined by the trier of the facts. City of Miami v. Gaskell, Fla.App.1973, 285 So. 2d 666.
We find that there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the finding that the stick was a deadly weapon in that it was large enough to cause the victim to be knocked to the ground upon being struck with it on her back. Cf. Bass v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 614.
In addition, we also note that Mrs. Phillips was cut several times by the girls and at the very least, D.P.S. could be found responsible as an aider and abettor for the cuts inflicted on Mrs. Phillips by D.P.S.’ companions. See State v. Roby, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 566; McNeal v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 303 So. 2d 698 and Cf. Studdard v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 767.
Appellant J.M.C. argues that the evidence at most shows she is guilty of simple assault rather than assault and battery. We cannot agree.
There is ample testimony that the victim and J.M.C. were fighting and engaged in physical contact. Thus, we will not disturb the judge’s finding of guilt as to assault and battery.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lanier v. State, 443 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…1981), nor battery, § 784.03, Fla.Stat. (1981), specific intent crimes, State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Shorette, 404 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Russell v. State, 373 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); J.M.C. v. State, 331 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), embrace the consensual, non-violent conduct which occurred in the present case. Therefore, the instant prosecution of the defendant under Section 800.04 is sustainable only if the alleged consensual sexual intercourse with an unc…
-
Nash v. State, 374 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…ravated assault. . See also: Fla.Std.Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.07(2)(a). . Goswick v. State, 143 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1962); Lindsey v. State, 67 Fla. 111, 64 So. 501 (1914); Johnson v. State, 249 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); J.M.C. and D.P.S. v. State, 331 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); Forchion v. State, 214 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968); Solitro v. State, 165 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). . Bass v. State, 232 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Warren v. St…
-
M.R.R. v. State, 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…dly weapon was jury question); McCray v. State, 358 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (cigarette lighter neither statutorily defined as weapon nor used or threatened to be used as weapon when merely pointed at victim as if were gun); J. M. C. v. State, 331 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (upholding jury determination of stick as deadly weapon); State v. Nixon, 295 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (whether pocket knife is deadly weapon is for trier of fact); Forchion v. State, 214 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (whethe…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goswick v. State, 143 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1962)
- State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971)
- Bass v. State, 232 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Bass v. State, 172 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Frierson v. State, 303 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Ensley Studdard v. State, 214 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- City OF Miami v. Gaskell, 285 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)