Skriver v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Skriver v. State

861 So. 2d 1290, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 70, 2004 WL 40524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 9, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-201

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 861 So. 2d 1290 (Skriver 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

Skriver v. State, 861 So. 2d 1290, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 70, 2004 WL 40524 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

Kevin Skriver appeals his judgment and sentence which were entered by the trial court after a jury found Skriver guilty of committing the crime of aggravated battery upon a pregnant person in violation of section 784.045(l)(b) of the Florida Statutes (2001). The State commendably and properly concedes that Skriver’s judgment and sentence must be reversed and this matter remanded for a new trial because the trial court reversibly erred in denying Mr. Skriver’s timely request for a jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of battery. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) Aggravated Battery. Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Skriver’s judgment and sentence and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial. See Rodriguez v. State, 789 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(holding that trial court’s failure to give requested jury instruction on necessarily lesser included offense of battery is reversible error).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

PALMER, J.

Kevin Skriver appeals his judgment and sentence which were entered by the trial court after a jury found Skriver guilty of committing the crime of aggravated battery upon a pregnant person in violation of section 784.045(l)(b) of the Florida Statutes (2001). The State commendably and properly concedes that Skriver’s judgment and sentence must be reversed and this matter remanded for a new trial because the trial court reversibly erred in denying Mr. Skriver’s timely request for a jury instruction on the necessarily lesser included offense of battery. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) Aggravated Battery. Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Skriver’s judgment and sentence and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial. See Rodriguez v. State, 789 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(holding that trial court’s failure to give requested jury instruction on necessarily lesser included offense of battery is reversible error).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 1290, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 70, 2004 WL 40524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skriver-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack