Major FL Court Affirms Juvenile’s Guilt in Controversial Aggravated Assault Case – Here’s Why

January 14, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal held that a juvenile raising a chair above her head as if to hit a “laughing” victim with it, before she was restrained, was aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

In Florida, aggravated assault is a very serious felony offense. Though it is usually a third-degree felony (up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine), aggravated assault is a second-degree felony (up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine) under certain circumstances. To learn more about sentencing in aggravated assault cases, click here.

For someone to be guilty of aggravated assault in Florida (Fla. Stat. 784.021), the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant made an intentional and unlawful threat of imminent violence
• The defendant had the apparent apparent ability to carry out the threat 
• The threat was of such a nature as to create well-founded fear in the victim that violence was about to occur
• A deadly weapon was involved or the defendant intended to commit a separate felony at the time the threat was made 

As you can see, there are two types of aggravated assault charges. The first of these is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon – the second is aggravated assault with intent to commit a separate felony. Cloninger v. State, 846 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)

Examples of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Florida include any of the following acts:

• During a road rage incident, A gets out of his car and points his gun at B, without intent to fire it (but placing B in imminent fear of unlawful violence)
• During an argument in a bar, C pulls a knife on D and threatens to “cut him up” – but does not take any further steps towards doing so
• During a dispute over F’s dog eating one of his plants, E chases F off his property with a baseball bat while swinging it wildly near his head

Note: Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is committed without the intent to kill the victim. If someone actually did intend to kill the victim, they are likely to face more serious charges – including attempted murder (depending on the facts of the case).

Examples of aggravated assault with the intent to commit a separate felony may include:

• A corners B in an alley and threatens to “rape” her, but C sees this and chases A away (aggravated assault with intent to commit sexual battery)
• E runs up to F with a knife and tells F to give up his wallet, but the police intervene and arrest F before the robbery occurs (aggravated assault with intent to commit robbery)
• G pulls up in his van next to H, a child, and threatens to kill H if he does not get inside (aggravated assault with intent to commit kidnapping)

If an aggravated assault is alleged to have been committed with a deadly weapon, some believe this is limited to guns and knives. However, the definition of a “deadly weapon” in Florida is any object used or threatened to be used in a manner likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Daniels v. State, 308 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Deadly weapons may include:

• BB guns
• Spearguns
• Sticks (especially if larger)
• Beer bottles
• Rocks 
• Chairs
• Bats
• Cars and trucks

Moreover, to prove “well-founded fear” in an aggravated assault case, a victim does not have to testify that they were placed in fear. Based on the actions of the defendant and the “totality of the circumstances,” the finder of fact (e.g. judge/jury) may permissibly infer the victim was in fear of imminent violence if a reasonable person in their position would’ve experienced that fear.

Given the above, some Florida courts have affirmed findings of guilt in aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in cases where many “non-lawyer observers” would not believe that aggravated assault truly occurred. 

One such case was decided by Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal (Northeast Florida). Let’s take a look at L.R.W. v. State, 848 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) and what it says about the breadth of Florida’s law against aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

KEY CASE: L.R.W. v. State, 848 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)

In L.R.W., the defendant (L.R.W.) was a juvenile charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. L.R.W. was adjudicated delinquent (e.g. found guilty by a judge in juvenile court), and appealed to the 5th DCA.

At trial, it was revealed that L.R.W. was involved in a “ruckus” involving many girls housed in a foster facility. During the incident, L.R.W. raised a chair above her head, seemingly intending to strike the alleged victim (Brown) with it. A moment later, L.R.W. was restrained – so the alleged victim was never hit.

A supervisor at the foster care facility claimed while testifying that the alleged victim was staring at L.R.W. and laughing as L.R.W. held the chair up. A few nearby girls allegedly looked scared, wondering what was going to happen next.

As there were no clear, outward signs of fear from the alleged victim and no testimony from the alleged victim claiming she was afraid, L.R.W. moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the aggravated assault charge at trial.

However, the trial judge denied this and adjudicated L.R.W. guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The judge found that Florida law did not require the alleged victim to testify to “prove” she was in fear – this could be “inferred” by the circumstances.

On appeal to the 5th DCA, L.R.W. argued the trial judge had gone too far by “inferring” that the alleged victim was in fear, as she was laughing and did not jump back when she was threatened. But the 5th DCA disagreed and affirmed the adjudication of delinquency, agreeing with the trial judge that the alleged victim’s fear could be inferred.

Finding that the trial judge was correct to deny L.R.W.’s motion for a judgment of acquittal at trial, the 5th DCA wrote:

“When a defendant moves for a judgment of acquittal, the defendant “admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence.” … It is the trial court’s obligation to determine whether the evidence reflects the presence or absence of competent evidence on each element of the offense from which a fact-finder could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other inferences.”

“The state is not required to rebut conclusively every imaginable variation of events that could possibly be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence that is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events. Once that threshold is satisfied, it is the duty of the finder of fact to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the trial court must consider the evidence under such circumstances in the light most favorable to the state.”

Applying the above law to the facts of L.R.W.’s case, the 5th DCA concluded that sufficient facts existed in the trial record to support a finding that L.R.W. was guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon:

“Here, although Brown did not testify as to her state of mind, Ms. George gave testimony that LRW was holding the chair directly over her head and was menacing Brown. Although Brown might have been laughing, the trial court found that an inference could be drawn that Brown’s laughter was out of fear, or out of a desire by Brown to frustrate LRW’s “design and intent” to injure her. Additionally, there was evidence that the other residents were in fear for their safety because they retreated when LRW picked up the chair. Because these are permissible inferences, the trial court could conclude that LRW’s actions would put a reasonable person in fear. The fact that Brown did not testify regarding her actual fear, therefore, is not conclusive. As the evidence was sufficient to prove the element of fear on the part of Brown, the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal.”

In sum, L.R.W. v. State, 848 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on the issues of what constitutes a deadly weapon and proof of “well-founded fear” in aggravated assault cases. The 5th DCA found that:

• L.R.W. threatened to use the chair in a manner likely to cause serious bodily harm to the alleged victim (making it a deadly weapon)
• Despite the alleged victim’s lack of testimony, the circumstances allowed the judge to permissibly infer that she was reasonably in fear of violence, given the circumstances
• As this made L.R.W. guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the adjudication of delinquency was affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should be aware of  L.R.W. v. State, 848 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), as it reveals how courts in Florida broadly interpret what constitutes a “deadly weapon” in aggravated assault cases – and occasionally allow inferences of “well-founded fear” even in the absence of victim testimony.

Aggravated assault can carry lengthy prison sentences and heavy financial penalties. If someone is charged, it is vital to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. 

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share