Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog
When the State prosecutes a crime, it must adhere strictly to the charges set forth in the information, as due process requires that defendants receive clear notice of the specific crimes they must defend against at trial. As such, if the State proceeds on a theory that differs from the offense actually charged, even subtle statutory differences can result in reversible error. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how convictions may be overturned when the evidence and theory of prosecution do not align with the charging document. If you are facing firearm-related charges, you should consult a Tampa criminal defense attorney to ensure your rights are fully protected.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the defendant went uninvited to her daughter’s apartment complex, accompanied by another family member, because she was concerned about the daughter’s relationship and wanted to persuade her to leave the residence. An argument developed in the parking lot between the daughter and the accompanying family member, which escalated into physical pushing and shoving.
Reportedly, the defendant became involved in the altercation while carrying a firearm in a hip holster, which she routinely wore for personal protection. During the physical struggle, the firearm discharged and struck the daughter, causing injury. The evidence presented at trial conflicted as to how the firearm came out of the holster and who caused it to fire.
It is alleged that witnesses living in the apartment complex observed portions of the altercation and that cellphone video footage captured segments of the incident. The daughter who was shot testified for the defense and stated that she accidentally shot herself. The defendant likewise testified that the discharge was accidental and occurred during the struggle.
It is reported that the State charged the defendant with improper exhibition of a firearm and discharging a firearm in a residential area. At trial, the State argued that witness testimony and video evidence showed the defendant improperly displayed the firearm and that the presence of multiple people satisfied the statutory elements. The defense countered that there was no intentional exhibition of the firearm and that the discharge was accidental and not caused by the defendant’s actions.
Reportedly, the jury found the defendant guilty on both counts, and the trial court entered judgment and sentence. The defendant appealed, challenging the validity of the conviction for discharging a firearm in a residential area.
Charging Information in Florida Criminal Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed de novo whether the charging information was fundamentally defective. The court reiterated that a defendant may only be convicted of the crimes charged and that due process is violated when a conviction rests on an uncharged offense, even if the uncharged offense is similar in nature.
The court noted that the information charged the defendant under a statutory subsection that criminalizes the recreational discharge of a firearm in a primarily residential area. That provision requires proof that the discharge was recreational in nature, such as target shooting. However, the State’s theory at trial focused on negligent or reckless discharge of a firearm on property used primarily as a dwelling, which is governed by a different statutory subsection with distinct elements.
The court emphasized that citing the wrong statutory subsection is not a mere technical error when the subsection charged omits an essential element of the offense actually tried. Because the State presented evidence and argument consistent with negligent or reckless discharge rather than recreational discharge, the defendant lacked proper notice of the crime for which she was ultimately convicted.
Relying on prior precedent, the appellate court explained that convictions based on uncharged theories constitute fundamental error and require reversal. The court concluded that the information failed to allege the essential elements of the offense proven at trial and that the defendant was therefore convicted of an uncharged crime.
As a result, the court reversed the conviction for discharging a firearm in a residential area and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to vacate that conviction. The court otherwise affirmed the remaining conviction.
Meet with a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case
Firearm cases often involve nuanced statutory distinctions that can determine whether a conviction stands or falls on appeal. If you are charged with a gun crime, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your potential defenses. The knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and help you to seek the best outcome possible. You can reach us at 813-228-7095 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.