Criminal Battery in Florida is defined as, “The offense of battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other… or intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.” Any person found guilty of committing the crime of battery commits a first-degree misdemeanor except if the person has been previously convicted for battery. If a person who has been previously convicted for battery commits a second or subsequent battery, he commits a third degree felony. Fla. Stat. Ann §784.03 (West 2001). In other words, to prove battery, the defendant’s conduct must have the following elements 1) actual and intentional physical contact of another person, 2) without consent, or 3) intent to …show more content…
If a person has consent to contact then a battery has not occurred; however, if a person does not consent, then a battery has occurred. In the case of State v Clyatt, Clyatt and the victim ordered food from the KFC drive through. While in the drive thru, an altercation occurred. Several witnesses reported observing Clyatt inside the car, beating the victim’s head against the car window; slapping and punching her in the face; grabbing her; and then chocking her. As is often the case in domestic violence cases, the victim declined to cooperate with the State after Clyatt’s arrest. Therefore, the state was left in the position of either dropping the charge or attempting to prove the element of simple battery solely through the testimony of the third-party witness. The state proved that the victim was struck against her will through third party testimony stating the victim was attempting to resist the attack and was visibly upset and crying afterwards. The court held that a battery had occurred; therefore, circumstantial evidence can be used to prove …show more content…
Florida Courts have ruled that the degree of harm in a battery does not matter and defined the word person as anything intimately connected to the person. In the case of Clark v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction of battery. He argues that the incident involved no touching or striking of a person and the victim’s truck could not be considered an extension of their persons, and the he court disagreed. The court held that “under the battery statue the degree of injury caused by an intentional touching is not relevant and “any intentional touching of another person against such person’s will is technically a criminal battery.” D.C. v. State, 436 So 2d 203, 206 (1983) The court further held that there “need not be an actual touching of the victim’s person in order for a battery to occur, but only a touching of something intimately connected with the victim’s body” Malczewksi v state 444 so.2d 1096, 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA1984). Thus, “the word ‘person’ in our state’s battery statue… means person or anything intimately connected with person.” Therefore anything intimately connected to a person is sufficient to establish a person and any bodily harm, no matter the degree, is enough to establish