MAHONEY-SMITH v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

MAHONEY-SMITH v. State

7 So. 3d 644, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3407, 2009 WL 1066144

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 2009

Docket3D08-30

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 So. 3d 644 (MAHONEY-SMITH 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

MAHONEY-SMITH v. State, 7 So. 3d 644, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3407, 2009 WL 1066144 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, J.

Latoya Mahoney-Smith appeals from her conviction and sentence for stalking, aggravated stalking, and multiple violations of an injunction against repeat violence claiming that the trial court erred (1) in permitting the state to introduce testimony about her past behavior, (2) in failing to instruct the jury on attempted violation of an injunction, and (3) in failing to enter a judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove malice, harassment, or emotional distress. Because the record demonstrates facts sufficient to establish each element of the charges against Mahoney-Smith and because we find no error in either the trial court’s evidentiary rulings or the jury instructions given, we affirm. See Dorsett v. State, 944 So.2d 1207, 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (confirming that evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted where it is inextricably intertwined with the charges being prosecuted and thus necessary to adequately describe the deed; to provide an intelligent account of the crimes charged; to establish the entire context out of which the charged crimes arose; or to adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crimes); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.510(a) (confirming that the court “shall not instruct the jury if there is no evidence to support the attempt and the only evidence proves a completed offense”).

Affirmed.

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

WELLS, J.

Latoya Mahoney-Smith appeals from her conviction and sentence for stalking, aggravated stalking, and multiple violations of an injunction against repeat violence claiming that the trial court erred (1) in permitting the state to introduce testimony about her past behavior, (2) in failing to instruct the jury on attempted violation of an injunction, and (3) in failing to enter a judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove malice, harassment, or emotional distress. Because the record demonstrates facts sufficient to establish each element of the charges against Mahoney-Smith and because we find no error in either the trial court’s evidentiary rulings or the jury instructions given, we affirm. See Dorsett v. State, 944 So.2d 1207, 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (confirming that evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted where it is inextricably intertwined with the charges being prosecuted and thus necessary to adequately describe the deed; to provide an intelligent account of the crimes charged; to establish the entire context out of which the charged crimes arose; or to adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crimes); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.510(a) (confirming that the court “shall not instruct the jury if there is no evidence to support the attempt and the only evidence proves a completed offense”).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 3d 644, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3407, 2009 WL 1066144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-smith-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack