North FL’s Highest Court Makes Major Ruling in Aggravated Assault Case

April 23, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant’s act of carrying a knife as he was exiting a gas station in close proximity to the clerk was sufficient to constitute aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under Florida law. Here’s why.

CASE: Willard v. State, 386 So.2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)

Charge(s): Aggravated Assault, Improper Exhibition of a Dangerous Weapon

Outcome: Conviction AFFIRMED, as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that the defendant committed an aggravated assault

Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon in Florida

In Florida, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Fla. Stat. 784.021(1)(a)) is a very serious felony. It is typically considered a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. But under certain circumstances, aggravated assault is a second-degree felony (up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine). For more, click here.

For someone to be guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill, 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 used in the course of making the threat (e.g. brandished, pointed, swung)

If someone commits an act that satisfies all of the above elements, but does so WITH the intent to kill a victim, they are likely to be charged with an even more serious felony offense (such as attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, or attempted manslaughter by act). For more, click here.

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

• A rushes up to B’s vehicle during a road rage incident and points his gun at B to “scare” him, without the intent to actually shoot B
• C produces a knife and rushes at D on a public street because he gets angry at D – but he does not actually try to stab D
• During an argument at a sports bar over the World Series, E grabs a baseball in the corner and rushes at F with it, swinging it wildly near F’s head

When reviewing this last example, you may ask: “Wait, a baseball bat can be considered a deadly weapon?” The answer is YES! The term “deadly weapon” under Florida aggravated assault law is broadly defined as any instrument or object that satisfies one of the following conditions:

• The object/instrument causing death or great bodily harm is “within the contemplation of its ordinary design” (e.g. firearms, knives, machetes)
• The object/instrument was used or threatened to be used in a manner that was likely to cause death or great bodily harm (Daniels v. State, 308 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020))

Objects found to constitute a deadly weapon for aggravated assault purposes have included spear guns, BB guns, large sticks, vehicles, chairs, and occasionally, rocks. L.R.W. v. State, 848 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). For more on this, click here.

A key element of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is that the defendant’s actions must be sufficient to create a well-founded fear in the mind of a REASONABLE victim. J.P. v. State, 128 So.3d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) 

Though it is commonly thought that the State must prove the victim was personally put in fear by the defendant’s act, this is not the case. For example, if the defendant flashes a gun at a military veteran with copious combat experience – and that veteran was not personally afraid for his life – this fact DOES NOT defeat the State’s case. 

This is because decades ago, Florida shifted from a “subjective” to “objective” standard on this issue. If a reasonable person in the alleged victim’s shoes would have experienced well-founded fear of imminent violence because of the defendant’s act, the defendant may be found guilty (so long as the remaining elements are satisfied). For more on this, click here.

However, it is important to note that aggravated assault is not a “strict liability” offense. The fact that someone was put in fear of imminent violence DOES NOT mean the fear was automatically well-founded. Moreover, if this stems from an UNINTENTIONAL act on the defendant’s part (e.g. a gun falling out of their pocket), they have not committed aggravated assault.

Because the simple act of carrying (rather than using) a deadly weapon is typically insufficient to sustain an aggravated assault conviction as a matter of law, Florida’s courts have sometimes been forced to decide “close cases.” Often, those cases involve a defendant arguing he simply had the alleged “deadly weapon” on his person or in his hand, but did not intend to threaten the victim.

In one such case heard by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court), the defendant grabbed two cases of beer and walked out of a gas station. A clerk noticed and walked outside to confront the defendant. When he did, the defendant turned around with a knife in his hand.

The defendant did not advance towards the clerk, nor make any gestures with the weapon. After the clerk saw the blade, he developed a fear that Willard was going to stab him and retreated into the store. Willard got into his car and drove off without further incident.

Willard was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He waived a trial by jury, so a bench trial (where a judge was the finder of fact) took place. Willard was found guilty of both aggravated assault and the less serious offense of improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon.

Willard appealed his aggravated assault conviction to the 1st DCA, arguing that the simple act of turning around to face the clerk with a knife in his hand – when he was at least 4-6 feet away and did not advance towards the clerk – was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute aggravated assault. He urged the 1st DCA to reverse his conviction.

However, the 1st DCA declined to do so and AFFIRMED the trial judge’s findings. Let’s take a look at that case – Willard v. State, 386 So.2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) – and find out why.

KEY CASE: Willard v. State, 386 So.2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)

In Willard, the defendant (Willard) was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a concealed weapon by a convicted felon. He was found guilty as charged of aggravated assault, and the second count was reduced to the lesser offense of improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. At trial, the following was revealed:

• Willard entered a gas station and began conversing with the clerk
• When the clerk turned around, Willard snatched two six-packs of beer off a shelf and walked out the front door
• The clerk saw Willard leaving and pursued him
• As the clerk got closer to Willard outside the gas station (approximately 4-6 feet from him), Willard turned around and revealed a knife in his hand
• Willard did not get any closer to the clerk, but the clerk feared that he was about to be stabbed and rushed back into the gas station
• Willard got into his vehicle and drove off

After he was adjudicated guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon at a bench trial (e.g. the judge acts as the finder of fact), Willard appealed his conviction. Willard argued that he did not commit aggravated assault against the victim as a matter of law because:

• He simply carried the knife and did not use it to make a threat
• He kept sufficient distance from the clerk, such that any fear on the clerk’s part that he was about to be stabbed as not “well-founded”

But the 1st DCA did not agree – and affirmed Willard’s conviction. Though the 1st DCA said it was a “close case,” it found there was sufficient evidence from which the trial judge could have concluded Willard was guilty:

“Willard contends that the evidence failed to establish that he had the apparent ability to do violence or that he committed any act which created a well-founded fear of imminent violence. He was standing four to six feet away and made no move toward the clerk. The simple fact of holding a knife in his hand is, he urges, comparable to the situation in Battles v. State, 288 So.2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), where the Court held that the act of pointing a gun at a police officer while emerging from a grocery store robbery was insufficient evidence of assault as a matter of law.”

“Although we realize that this is a close case, we disagree that the evidence of aggravated assault is insufficient. The ability to do violence was established by the presence of the knife because a knife may be thrown or used anytime it is in a person’s possession. As for the commission of an act creating a well-founded fear of imminent violence, we believe that it is not necessary that the knife be brandished or that the perpetrator move toward the victim. Here, the evidence supports the finding that Willard pulled the knife and turned toward the clerk when he was confronted with the accusation of the theft of the beer or the procuring of the beer at an illegal hour. This was, in our opinion, an act which created a well-founded fear of imminent violence on the part of the clerk. Thus, we find the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated assault.”

Put simply, because the knife could have been thrown or Willard could have rushed at the clerk, there was a sufficient basis for the victim to develop a “well-founded fear” that violence was about to occur. Thus, Willard’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon did not require reversal.

In sum, Willard v. State, 386 So.2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The 1st DCA (North FL’s highest court) held that:

• Willard turning around with a knife in his hand to face the clerk involved the use of a deadly weapon to create a “well-founded fear” of imminent violence in the clerk’s mind
• The clerk reasonably believed that he may be stabbed or the knife would be thrown at him, as he was roughly 4-6 feet away from Willard at the time
• Because the elements of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon were satisfied by his conduct, Willard’s conviction was AFFIRMED

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Willard v. State, 386 So.2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), as it reveals how Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court evaluates whether an aggravated assault conviction can be sustained (or if it requires reversal) in “close cases.”

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 criminal 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