Logan v. State
Opinion
Candido Logan appeals his conviction for resisting arrest without violence, contending that the trial court improperly admitted collateral and wholly irrelevant evidence of prior acts of violence which were highly prejudicial and thus reversal is required in accordance with Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). We disagree and thus affirm.
The evidence Logan challenges is a document — an “ex parte temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes,”— which a law enforcement officer was attempting to serve when he was allegedly battered by Logan. The charges tried included resisting an officer with violence in violation of section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1995),1 an [141] element of which is the officer’s being engaged in the lawful execution of a duty. Smith v. State, 399 So.2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The document is thus relevant as it demonstrates and helps explain the lawful duty being carried out. As a consequence, the document is not violative of the Williams rule and was properly admitted into evidence.
Affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
705 So. 2d 140 (Logan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.