Published on:

By

Allegations of criminal threats through electronic means have increased with the proliferation of social media and digital communication platforms. Interpreting electronically communicated threats can be difficult for authorities as well as potential victims. A notable case recently heard by a Florida appellate court involved a juvenile who was convicted for sending an electronic threat via a text message that included an emoji. The juvenile in question was charged with making threats after a series of direct messages on Instagram, which were deemed threatening by the prosecution, although the juvenile’s lawyers on appeal have argued that he did not have the requisite intent to be convicted of the crime.

The case involved a heated exchange between three students on Instagram. The conflict started when one student posted a video expressing admiration for the defendant, which led to a series of threatening messages. Both the defendant and their significant other participated in the conversation using the defendant’s Instagram account. The most controversial part of the exchange was when one student sent a gun emoji along with the phrase “ima run from 22” to the other student involved in the argument. This digital communication resulted in the defendant’s arrest and subsequent charge for making electronic threats under Florida law, which makes it a crime to send threats through written or electronic communication. The prosecution argued that the gun emoji, combined with the context of the messages, constituted a credible threat.

After being found guilty and sentenced to five years of probation, the defendant appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and that the prosecution failed to prove he had the requisite intent to make a threat. The defendant contended that the trial should have considered whether he had specific intent to threaten, rather than general intent. However, the appellate court ruled against him, finding that the issue of intent was not properly preserved for appeal. The court noted that during the trial, the defendant’s defense did not clearly argue the necessity of proving specific intent, and thus, the appellate court could not review this claim. The court emphasized that for an appeal to succeed, any objections or legal arguments must be explicitly raised and ruled upon during the trial, which did not occur in this case.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Florida, criminal defendants can face significant challenges during their trials, particularly when police testimony exceeds the boundaries set by prosecutors’ questions. Such overreaching testimony can unfairly influence a jury, leading to potentially unjust outcomes. Recently, a Florida court of appeals addressed a defendant’s challenge regarding broad police testimony, discussing how such situations are handled and when a mistrial might be considered versus when a curative jury instruction can be deemed sufficient.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the case involved a defendant charged with trafficking methamphetamine after an undercover operation. The undercover officer arranged a controlled buy, during which the defendant sold him 14 grams of methamphetamine. At trial, the defendant admitted to the sale but claimed entrapment, arguing he was coerced into selling a larger quantity than he intended. Despite his defense, the jury convicted him of trafficking.

On appeal, the defendant argued for a mistrial based on the undercover officer’s testimony, which he claimed went beyond the scope of the questions asked and included personal interpretations of his statements. The defense objected to parts of the recording from the controlled buy, citing the irrelevance and potential prejudice of the officers’ crosstalk. They contended that these elements unfairly impacted the jury’s view of the evidence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As technology continues to evolve, so do the tools law enforcement agencies use in criminal investigations. One such tool is Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), which capture license plate numbers and vehicle movements for various law enforcement purposes. However, the admissibility of ALPR evidence in criminal prosecutions raises important legal questions, as highlighted in a recent judicial opinion.

The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case in which ALPR evidence played a significant role in an attempted murder-for-hire trial. The evidence consisted of reports from online databases showing The defendant’s vehicle traveling at suspicious times and locations in relation to the shooting incident. The defendant raised objections to the admissibility of the ALPR evidence, arguing that its use constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, she contended that the government should have presented the evidence through an expert witness.

Despite the Defendant’s objections, the district court allowed the ALPR evidence to be introduced at trial. The court ruled that the Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her vehicle’s exterior or license plate, which the ALPR system visually captured. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not require expert testimony, as presenting photographs or images of vehicles is akin to other forms of visual evidence commonly admitted at trial.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Both United States Federal Courts and Florida state courts consider many factors when issuing a sentence after a criminal conviction. Generally, courts will apply factors that relate to the charged crime specifically, as well as factors relating to the defendant’s criminal history, character, and ongoing risk to the public. Sentencing guidelines use a sentencing matrix that considers all of the aggravating and mitigating factors and produces a suggested sentencing range, which judges should generally follow. A Florida man convicted of possessing child pornography recently appealed his sentence for improperly applying aggravating factors at his sentencing.

The defendant in the recently decided case was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and animal abuse after authorities found child pornography in an online storage folder attributed to the defendant. After obtaining a warrant and searching the defendant’s home, authorities found more child pornography, as well as animal sexual abuse videos. The defendant admitted the videos belonged to him, and was charged in federal court with multiple sexual crimes. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges. During sentencing, the court applied the guideline factors to the defendant’s specific situation, and he was sentenced to over 21 years in federal prison. The defendant appealed the sentencing to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that an aggravating factor was improperly applied during his sentencing.

Specifically, the defendant challenged the court’s application of an enhancement based upon his “engaging in a pattern or activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.” Federal prosecutors had convinced the sentencing judge that the defendant had previously engaged in a sexual relationship with a boy who was under 16 and that he had had sex with the minor more than once. The defendant challenged the government’s evidence of the pattern of abuse, maintaining that the government could only prove that he had sex with the child one time. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s arguments, pointing to the victim’s testimony that he had sex with the defendant at least 2 times before he turned 16, and finding sufficient corroborating evidence between the defendant’s statements and those of the boy to determine that the sentencing judge properly applied the sentencing factors. As a result of the appellate decision, the defendant will be required to serve his sentence.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Domestic violence allegations in Florida can be some of the toughest types of charges for judges and juries to evaluate. Often, domestic violence charges are based upon “he said-she said ” situations, and it is up to the judge to determine what types of evidence and argument that a jury can hear in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Generally, the final charges to the jury, in the form of jury instructions, can be used to frame the charges in a way to give one side an advantage over the other. Because of this, there are strict requirements concerning how and what can be told to the jury in their instructions. A Florida appellate court recently determined that the jury was improperly instructed before deliberations, and reversed the conviction of a man who was accused and convicted of a domestic violence crime after having an altercation with his then-romantic partner.

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the defendant was charged with aggravated battery following a physical altercation with the alleged victim, his partner with whom he lived. Conflicting testimonies emerged between the alleged victim and the defendant. The alleged victim claimed that the defendant arrived home with another woman, leading to an argument. The defendant allegedly punched, kicked, and strangled the alleged victim, even attempting to drown her in a bowl of ice-water. The alleged victim testified to sustaining various injuries.

The defendant, on the other hand, asserted that the alleged victim attacked him first, and the physical altercation ensued. He denied drowning her, using a firearm, or preventing her from leaving. The other woman’s testimony supported the defendant’ version, stating that the alleged victim initiated the violence, barricaded the door, and attacked both the defendant and herself.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Domestic violence allegations in Florida can be some of the toughest types of charges for judges and juries to evaluate. Often, domestic violence charges are based upon “he said-she said ” situations, and it is up to the judge to determine what types of evidence and argument a jury can hear in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Generally, the final charges to the jury, in the form of jury instructions, can be used to frame the charges in a way that gives one side an advantage over the other. Because of this, there are strict requirements concerning how and what can be told to the jury in their instructions. A Florida appellate court recently determined that the jury was improperly instructed before deliberations and reversed the conviction of a man who was accused and convicted of a domestic violence crime after having an altercation with his then-romantic partner.

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the defendant was charged with aggravated battery following a physical altercation with the alleged victim, his partner with whom he lived. Conflicting testimonies emerged between the alleged victim and the defendant. The alleged victim claimed that the defendant arrived home with another woman, leading to an argument. The defendant allegedly punched, kicked, and strangled the alleged victim, even attempting to drown her in a bowl of ice water. The alleged victim testified to sustaining various injuries.

The defendant, on the other hand, asserted that the alleged victim attacked him first, and a physical altercation ensued. He denied drowning her, using a firearm, or preventing her from leaving. The other woman’s testimony supported the defendant’s version, stating that the alleged victim initiated the violence, barricaded the door, and attacked both the defendant and herself.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Child pornography prosecutions in Florida are often reliant on evidence that was obtained by the issuance of a search warrant. In evaluating Florida child pornography cases, understanding the intricacies of search warrant requirements is crucial. If a prosecution relies upon evidence obtained without a valid warrant, dismissal of the charges may be mandatory. A recent Florida judicial opinion provides valuable insights into the necessary details for a search warrant to issue in such cases.

The case revolves around a Florida detective’s investigation into child pornography that was allegedly possessed by the defendant. The affidavit supporting the search warrant application outlined in detail the detective’s extensive experience in handling cases related to the possession and transmission of child pornography. The investigation, initiated in late 2017, utilized BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing network, to trace illegal content linked to the defendant’s IP address.

The crux of the affidavit rested on the detective’s use of internet tools designed for investigating crimes against children. Through these tools, he identified specific hash values associated with the Defendant’s P address, indicating the presence of containers/files/folders containing child pornography. Notably, a hash value serves as a unique digital fingerprint for each piece of digital media, supposedly offering law enforcement a tool to identify illegal content with precision.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As technology progresses, Florida police officers, prosecutors, and courts face novel questions as to how the Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures apply to evidence sought from a cloud account or other online storage source. The Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case where the defendant had challenged the validity of a search warrant that was used to obtain evidence against him for a firearm charge. The defendant challenged the breadth of a warrant that allowed the police access to his entire iCloud account.

According to the facts discussed in the recent appellate opinion, the defendant was charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a felon after police discovered a picture of him holding a weapon in his cloud storage. The initial police investigation was for an armed robbery, and they obtained a warrant to search his iCloud account for evidence related to the robbery. Although not enough evidence was found to charge the defendant with the robbery, he was charged with the firearm offense based on his felon status.

The defendant challenged the admission of the photograph into evidence, arguing that the warrant was overbroad and allowed police access to too much information without probable cause. The appellate court agreed that the warrant was insufficient, though the ruling was upheld anyway based on the good faith exception. The good faith exception allows police to make a mistake of law and potentially violate a suspect’s constitutional rights if that officer relied upon a good-faith belief that what they were doing was constitutional. The appeals court was sympathetic to the officer’s conduct because searches of cloud storage systems are relatively new, and with evolving technology comes evolving laws. As a result of the appellate opinion, the defendant will be required to serve his sentence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Defending against sex crime allegations in Florida can be an uphill battle. Florida defendants have the right to a trial by jury, however, selecting a jury in a sex crime prosecution can be especially difficult, as many members of the public may have a bias against anyone accused of a sex crime, regardless of what the evidence demonstrates. A Florida appellate court recently ruled on an appeal by a defendant who claimed his objections during the jury selection process were illegally denied, resulting in a conviction.

The defendant in the recently decided case was arrested and charged with sexual battery. Before his trial, the defendant and prosecution went through jury selection, where each side was permitted to exclude jurors, either for cause or for no cause at all. Each party is allowed a limited amount of preemptory strikes, which are done without cause. During jury selection, one prospective juror’s initial response during questioning presented an issue for the defense counsel. She expressed feeling uneasy when she learned about the sexual assault charges against the defendant. This reaction was attributed to her experiences as an elementary school teacher, where she had heard students recount their own experiences of sexual abuse.

When defense counsel moved to strike the juror for cause, the trial court did not recall her statement accurately. Instead, the state prosecutor suggested that the court question Mehr further to rehabilitate her impartiality, which was denied. As a result, the defendant had to use his last peremptory challenge to remove Mehr from the jury. Subsequently, the defendant moved for an additional peremptory challenge to strike another juror he believed to be objectionable. However, at that point, only one prospective juror remained. The trial court expressed concern about having an insufficient number of jurors rejected the request. The defendant was ultimately convicted after the trial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before a district court in Florida, the State asked the court to reconsider the lower court’s decision to suppress evidence in a drug case. The lower court had originally ruled that the defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted, given that several police officers executing a warrant failed to knock and announce their presence prior to entering his hotel room. On appeal, however, the higher court found that the officers did not actually need to knock before entering, thus granting the State’s request and remanding the case back for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was residing in a hotel room, one that had sliding glass doors. While he was in the hotel room, officers came looking for him in order to execute a warrant for his arrest. Upon seeing him inside the room, the officers noticed the defendant had narcotics and drug paraphernalia around him.

The officers entered the defendant’s room and arrested him. The State later charged the defendant with possession of a controlled substance. Upon being charged, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing the officers should have knocked and announced their presence before entering the room. The lower court granted the motion, and the State promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

Contact Information
Mayberry Law Firm
3902 Henderson Blvd, #208-136
Tampa, FL 33629
Phone: (813) 444-7435

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, Mayberry Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design