Chiarenza v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chiarenza v. State

217 So. 3d 128, 2017 WL 927812, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3089

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2017

DocketNo. 3D15-122

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 So. 3d 128 (Chiarenza v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chiarenza v. State, 217 So. 3d 128, 2017 WL 927812, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3089 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant John Chiarenza’s conviction for aggravated assault. The jury’s verdict is supported by competent, substantial evidence of each element of the crime. Walker v. State, 957 So.2d 560, 577 (Fla. 2007). Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admission of Chiarenza’s preferred expert. Rodriguez v. State, 413 So.2d 1303, 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Chiaren-za’s requested special “defense theory of the case” jury instruction. While the trial court, in its discretion, certainly could have given the defense’s special instruction (Card v. State, 803 So.2d 613, 624 (Fla. 2001)), the standard instructions given to the jury fully covered Chiarenza’s defense theories. Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747, 755-56 (Fla. 2001).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant John Chiarenza’s conviction for aggravated assault. The jury’s verdict is supported by competent, substantial evidence of each element of the crime. Walker v. State, 957 So.2d 560, 577 (Fla. 2007). Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admission of Chiarenza’s preferred expert. Rodriguez v. State, 413 So.2d 1303, 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Chiaren-za’s requested special “defense theory of the case” jury instruction. While the trial court, in its discretion, certainly could have given the defense’s special instruction (Card v. State, 803 So.2d 613, 624 (Fla. 2001)), the standard instructions given to the jury fully covered Chiarenza’s defense theories. Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747, 755-56 (Fla. 2001).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 So. 3d 128, 2017 WL 927812, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiarenza-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack