West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog : Ronald Chapman: West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer | Florida Criminal Attorney: DUI, Assault & Battery, Felonies | Criminal Law Firm

          In many cases in which an individual is charged with committing the crime of aggravated battery, the weapon that is used is a knife or a gun.  However, it is also possible to commit aggravated battery using a car.

          In the case of Rosa v. State of Florida, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that in order to convict someone of aggravated battery who rams his vehicle into another vehicle, the prosecutor must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the occupants of the rammed vehicle were jostled, injured, had to brace themselves for protection against the impending impact, or were moved about within the vehicle during the crash.

          In the Rosa case, police were led on a high-speed chase following a reported armed robbery.  The car that the police were chasing ultimately crashed against both a guardrail and a patrol car.  The officer driving the rammed patrol car was unbuckling his seat belt when he saw the getaway car traveling in reverse.  The resulting impact damaged the bumper of the patrol car, cracked a turn-signal light, and caused a strobe light to fall off the dashboard.  The impact also caused the door of the patrol car to strike another officer which resulted in that officer's arm and shin area being injured.

          The court of appeals concluded that because no evidence was presented that the officer inside the damaged patrol car was jostled, injured, moved, or had to brace himself in order to protect himself against the impact of the getaway vehicle, the driver of the getaway vehicle was not guilty of aggravated battery.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

          In the case of C.A.C. v. State of Florida, the Second District Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether a fork is a deadly weapon in a case in which the accused individual was charged with committing the crime of aggravated battery.

          The accused, who was ten years old, stabbed another child two or three times in the back with a fork which resulted in the other child having swelling, scratches, and puncture marks.  The child who was stabbed did not receive medical treatment for his injuries.

          The appellate court first had to determine if the victim in C.A.C.'s case suffered great bodily harm since a person commits aggravated battery if he causes great bodily harm while committing the crime of battery.  The appellate court ruled that because great bodily harm is more than simply moderate harm such as mere bruising, the victim in this case did not suffer great bodily harm.

          However, the court still had to decide whether the fork that was used in this case qualified as a deadly weapon since a person can also commit aggravated battery if he uses a deadly weapon.  The court first noted that forks are designed to be used for eating and not for causing great bodily harm.  Furthermore, the fork in this particular case did not cause great bodily harm; it instead caused swelling, scratches, and puncture marks which did not require medical treatment.

          Accordingly, the appellate court found that the evidence was insufficient to convict C.A.C. of aggravated battery.  However, it was sufficient to convict him of simply battery.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

          A person can commit the crime of aggravated battery in one of three ways in Florida.  If a person, while committing the crime of battery: 

          1.  Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement of another person; or

          2.  Uses a deadly weapon; or

          3.  If a person who was the victim of a battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant, then the offender may be guilty of the crime of aggravated battery. 

          The crime of aggravated battery is a second-degree felony which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

          However, deciding whether someone's actions actually constitute the crime of aggravated battery can sometimes be quite difficult  as the case of Nguyen v. State of Florida illustrates.

          In that particular case, Mr. Nguyen was charged, among other things, with the crime of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the victim or, alternatively, by using a deadly weapon which happened to be an electric stun gun.

         The First District Court of Appeal began its analysis with the observation that proving great bodily harm requires more than slight, trivial, minor, moderate, or some harm.  In Mr. Nguyen's case, the victim testified that it hurt when she was shot with the stun gun and that it caused her to lie down.  In addition, a police officer testified that he saw burn marks on the victim after he arrived on scene.  Significantly, however, no evidence was presented that the victim required medical treatment for her burns or that she had any lasting negative effects or scars from being shot with a stun gun.  The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that there was not enough evidence to convict Mr. Nguyen of the crime of aggravated battery by causing great bodily harm.

          However, that did not end the Court's analysis since it still had to decide whether Mr. Nguyen was nonetheless guilty of committing the crime of aggravated battery because he had used a deadly weapon.

          The Court defined a "deadly weapon" as:

          1.  Any instrument which, when it is used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction will or is likely to cause great bodily harm; or

          2.  Any instrument likely to cause great bodily harm because of the way it is used during a crime.

          In Mr. Nguyen's case, the appellate court ruled that the prosecution failed to present any evidence that a stun gun qualifies as a deadly weapon by its ordinary use.  Additionally, the evidence was insufficient to prove that the stun gun used by Mr. Nguyen constituted a deadly weapon based upon the way that he used it against the victim.  Accordingly, there was also not enough evidence to convict Mr. Nguyen of the crime of aggravated battery for using a deadly weapon.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks