Fernandez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fernandez v. State

263 So. 3d 224

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2019

DocketNo. 3D17-1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 So. 3d 224 (Fernandez 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

Fernandez v. State, 263 So. 3d 224 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*225Affirmed. See Bouters v. State, 659 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1995) (holding that the "substantial emotional distress" element of stalking requires application of an objective, reasonable-person standard); Pallas v. State, 636 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ; T.B. v. State, 990 So.2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ; D.L.D. v. State, 815 So.2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also McKinnon v. State, 712 So.2d 1259, 1260-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the "harassment" element of crime of stalking requires State to prove defendant's acts caused substantial emotional distress, not that defendant intended to cause substantial emotional distress); Seese v. State, 955 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (noting distinction between "legal malice" (wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse) and "actual malice" (ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent), and holding that section 784.08(4) requires proof of legal malice); Fla. Std. J. Inst. 8.7(b) (Crim.) (providing: " 'Maliciously' means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse").

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

PER CURIAM.

*225Affirmed. See Bouters v. State, 659 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1995) (holding that the "substantial emotional distress" element of stalking requires application of an objective, reasonable-person standard); Pallas v. State, 636 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ; T.B. v. State, 990 So.2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ; D.L.D. v. State, 815 So.2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also McKinnon v. State, 712 So.2d 1259, 1260-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the "harassment" element of crime of stalking requires State to prove defendant's acts caused substantial emotional distress, not that defendant intended to cause substantial emotional distress); Seese v. State, 955 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (noting distinction between "legal malice" (wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse) and "actual malice" (ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent), and holding that section 784.08(4) requires proof of legal malice); Fla. Std. J. Inst. 8.7(b) (Crim.) (providing: " 'Maliciously' means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse").

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 So. 3d 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack