From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McClain v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 18, 1980
383 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Summary

holding that there was no requirement that a victim in an assault actually testify as to his or her own state of mind with respect to whether or not he or she was afraid

Summary of this case from Thomas v. State

Opinion

No. 79-705.

May 21, 1980. Rehearing Denied June 18, 1980.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, St. Lucie County, Royce R. Lewis, J.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Polly M. Shull, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mark Horn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


This is an appeal by the defendant from his conviction of two counts of aggravated assault. We affirm.

The facts are absolutely uncontested. A cashier in a grocery store observed appellant placing a piece of meat under his shirt. Appellant began to exit the store without paying for the merchandise. The cashier informed the manager of the market and another employee. These two employees followed the defendant out of the store, yelled at him, and began chasing him. Defendant obviously knew that he was being pursued. Defendant stopped abruptly and threw the piece of meat under a car. He swung around with a knife in his hand and pointed it at the two store employees. The pursuers stopped. No one said anything. Defendant waited with the knife in his hand, pointing it at the employees and waving it around. The employees began backing up. The defendant again turned around and began running. One of the employees then immediately returned to the store to call the police. The second employee continued following the defendant at a safe distance.

Appellant contends that the State failed to prove a necessary element of aggravated assault, namely, that the victims had a well-founded fear of imminent bodily injury. State v. White, 324 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1976), clearly establishes the necessity for such proof. We find the facts here sufficient to create a very clear inference that the store employees had a well-founded fear of imminent bodily harm. Contrary to appellant's argument, there is no requirement that the victim in an assault actually testify to his own state of mind. Indeed, the evidence here is rather compelling. The employees were pursuing the defendant when he whirled about and threatened them with a knife. He pointed the knife at them, waved it around and waited. The store employees stopped and began backing up. A jury could find that a reasonable man under such circumstances would be afraid and that these individuals were in fact in fear. We believe the rule to be correctly stated in Gilbert v. State, 347 So.2d 1087, 1088 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), as follows:

[W]here the circumstances were such as to ordinarily induce fear in the mind of a reasonable man, then the victim may be found to be in fear, and actual fear need not be strictly and precisely shown. See also Ponder v. State, 221 So.2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), and Solloa v. State, 227 So.2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1969).

The evidence here was sufficient to prove the element of fear on the part of the victims. The conviction is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McClain v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 18, 1980
383 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

holding that there was no requirement that a victim in an assault actually testify as to his or her own state of mind with respect to whether or not he or she was afraid

Summary of this case from Thomas v. State

recognizing that victim fear is required but that a "very clear inference" of fear was shown such that a "jury could find that a reasonable man under such circumstances would be afraid and that these individuals were in fact in fear."

Summary of this case from Daniels v. State

noting that "there is no requirement that the victim in an assault actually testify to his own state of mind"

Summary of this case from Daniels v. State

In McClain v. State, 383 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), Mr. McClain was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault when he pulled a knife on two grocery store employees who gave chase after they watched Mr. McClain pilfer a piece of meat.

Summary of this case from S.P.M. v. State
Case details for

McClain v. State

Case Details

Full title:JUNIOUS McCLAIN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 18, 1980

Citations

383 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing Cases

S.P.M. v. State

There is ... no requirement that the victim of an assault actually testify to his or her own state of mind.…

Daniels v. State

In this situation, every district court has held that an objective standard applies, irrespective of the lack…