Lowery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lowery v. State

57 So. 3d 868, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1435, 2011 WL 362234

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2011

DocketNo. 1D09-2311

StatusPublished

This text of 57 So. 3d 868 (Lowery 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

Lowery v. State, 57 So. 3d 868, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1435, 2011 WL 362234 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Elizabeth Harris Lowery, appeals her judgments and sentences and raises two issues, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence. Although the State concedes error, we conclude that no fundamental error occurred. Appellant’s testimony established that at the time any alleged resistance occurred, she was aware that the individuals were officers. As such, the knowledge element was not in dispute at trial. Cf. Lett v. State, 29 So.3d 455, 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial); Leonard [869]*869v. State, 1 So.3d 1271, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (same).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

KAHN, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Elizabeth Harris Lowery, appeals her judgments and sentences and raises two issues, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence. Although the State concedes error, we conclude that no fundamental error occurred. Appellant’s testimony established that at the time any alleged resistance occurred, she was aware that the individuals were officers. As such, the knowledge element was not in dispute at trial. Cf. Lett v. State, 29 So.3d 455, 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial); Leonard [869]*869v. State, 1 So.3d 1271, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (same).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

KAHN, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 3d 868, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1435, 2011 WL 362234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowery-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack