JOHN HAYDEN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 8, 2023
Docket23-0554
StatusPublished

This text of JOHN HAYDEN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (JOHN HAYDEN v. STATE OF FLORIDA) 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
JOHN HAYDEN v. STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D23-554 LT Case No. 2022-CF-4825 _____________________________

JOHN HAYDEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Jeb T. Branham, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Natalie R. Gossett, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristie Regan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

December 8, 2023

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and the prison sentence imposed following trial. Appellant argues that error occurred when, during the direct examination of the investigating officer, the prosecutor asked the officer if she determined who was the primary aggressor in the altercation between Appellant and the victim, to which the officer answered that it was Appellant, see Zangroniz v. State, 358 So. 3d 827, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“[T]he questioning of the officers about who they viewed as the ‘aggressor’ improperly invaded the province of the jury by soliciting witnesses’ opinions about the merits of [the defendant’s] self-defense claim, and ultimately his guilt or innocence.”), and then, during closing argument, when the prosecutor reminded the jury of this testimony.

Appellant concedes that his trial counsel raised no objections to either the question and answer or the prosecutor’s comment during closing argument. He relies on the fundamental error doctrine for reversal. From our review of the record, we conclude that no fundamental error occurred and, therefore, affirm.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and PRATT, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
JOHN HAYDEN v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-hayden-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2023.