Masters v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Masters v. State

187 So. 3d 1283, 2016 WL 1437734, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5513

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2016

DocketNo. 1D14-5828

StatusPublished

This text of 187 So. 3d 1283 (Masters 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

Masters v. State, 187 So. 3d 1283, 2016 WL 1437734, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5513 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions for two counts of child neglect without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement, as prohibited by section 827.03(2)(d), Florida .Statutes (2012). He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present a prima facie case. We find that a single incident of excessive alcohol consumption standing alone, under the particular facts of this case, was insufficient to show culpable negligence. See Arnold v. State, 755 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Thus, we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment of acquittal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions for two counts of child neglect without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement, as prohibited by section 827.03(2)(d), Florida .Statutes (2012). He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present a prima facie case. We find that a single incident of excessive alcohol consumption standing alone, under the particular facts of this case, was insufficient to show culpable negligence. See Arnold v. State, 755 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Thus, we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment of acquittal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 So. 3d 1283, 2016 WL 1437734, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masters-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack