Orozco v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Orozco v. State

49 Fla. Supp. 2d 51

Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida·Decided August 9, 1991·No. Case No. 90-112AC·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The previous appellate opinion filed on December 31, 1990, is withdrawn.¹ We hold that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury by reading the last portion of the information stating that the appellant unlawfully opposed the police officer in the performance of his legal duty, the issue in this case. Therefore, by [52] removing from the jury the question of whether the appellant resisted, obstructed or opposed the officer, the court essentially removed from the jury the determination of an essential element of the offense charged. The trial court also erred in excluding evidence that the officer had struck the appellant about the head after his arrest. Such evidence should have been included since it bore directly on the officer’s credibility, the only witness against the appellant. We find grounds two and three without merit. The trial court was correct in denying appellant’s motion for discharge and appellant’s motion for mistrial. This court therefore reverses and remands with instructions to grant a new trial.

Footnotes

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The previous appellate opinion filed on December 31, 1990, is withdrawn.¹ We hold that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury by reading the last portion of the information stating that the appellant unlawfully opposed the police officer in the performance of his legal duty, the issue in this case. Therefore, by [52] removing from the jury the question of whether the appellant resisted, obstructed or opposed the officer, the court essentially removed from the jury the determination of an essential element of the offense charged. The trial court also erred in excluding evidence that the officer had struck the appellant about the head after his arrest. Such evidence should have been included since it bore directly on the officer’s credibility, the only witness against the appellant. We find grounds two and three without merit. The trial court was correct in denying appellant’s motion for discharge and appellant’s motion for mistrial. This court therefore reverses and remands with instructions to grant a new trial.

Footnotes

Orozco v. State, 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 51 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

49 Fla. Supp. 2d 51 (Orozco v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.