Young v. State
2000 WL 289741, 753 So. 2d 725 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a person of aggravated child abuse for maliciously punishing a child under Florida law, the state must prove the defendant acted with actual malice, which is defined as acting with "ill will, hatred, spite, [or] an evil intent," not merely legal malice, which is defined as acting wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification.
Facts:
- The appellant, Young, called the sheriff's office because she was upset that a relative was allegedly teaching her two sons how to steal.
- The following day, a deputy responded to another call and observed multiple bruises and abrasions on Young's seven-year-old son.
- The child told the deputy that Young had questioned him about missing money and then hit him with a telephone cord.
- Young first told the deputy she had "blacked out" and could not remember the incident.
- Young later told an investigator from the Department of Children and Families that she hit the child with a computer cord after he became upset and threw a computer game joystick at her.
- Young also informed the investigator that her sons were "out of control," that the child had stolen money from her, and that she had been seeking help with disciplining them.
- At trial, the child testified that Young had punished him with a folded extension cord for something he had not done.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Young by amended information with aggravated child abuse in a Florida trial court.
- At the close of the State's evidence during the jury trial, Young moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.
- During the charge conference, Young requested a special jury instruction defining "malice" as "ill will, hatred, spite, an evil intent."
- The trial court denied Young's request and instead gave the standard jury instruction defining "maliciously" as "wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse."
- The jury returned a verdict finding Young guilty as charged.
- Young filed a motion for a new trial based on the erroneous jury instruction, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court adjudicated Young guilty and sentenced her to prison, from which Young (as Appellant) appealed to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, against the State of Florida (as Appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the standard jury instruction defining "maliciously" as 'wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse' correctly state the required element of intent for the crime of aggravated child abuse by malicious punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Webster, J.
No. The standard jury instruction incorrectly defines the element of malice required for aggravated child abuse by malicious punishment. The proper definition, established by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Gaylord, requires proof of actual malice, meaning "ill will, hatred, spite, an evil intent." The trial court gave the standard jury instruction defining malice as "wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse," which describes legal malice, not the required actual malice. This distinction is significant because actual malice requires proof of an evil motive, whereas legal malice can be inferred from an intentional wrongful act. By using the incorrect definition, the trial court lowered the state's burden of proof on an essential element of the crime, which constitutes harmful error. The court noted that trial judges are not obligated to use standard jury instructions when they incorrectly state the law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the specific intent (mens rea) necessary to secure a conviction for aggravated child abuse by malicious punishment in Florida. It draws a critical distinction between "actual malice" (a subjective evil intent) and "legal malice" (an objective intentional wrongful act), holding that the former is required for this offense. This ruling elevates the burden of proof for the prosecution in such cases, requiring evidence of the defendant's hateful or spiteful state of mind, rather than just proof of excessive or unjustified corporal punishment. Furthermore, the opinion serves as a significant reminder to trial courts that their duty to correctly instruct the jury on the law supersedes any obligation to use standard jury instructions that may be legally flawed.
Unlock the full brief for Young v. State