Husarek v. State
Husarek appealed his conviction for resisting an officer without violence, arguing the trial court fundamentally erred by not instructing the jury that knowledge of the officer's intent to detain is an essential element in flight-based resisting cases. The Third DCA held that because this was an unpreserved instructional error and the record showed no genuine dispute that Husarek knew of Vasquez's intent to detain him (given the verbal command, uniform, lights, and pursuit), the omission did not constitute fundamental error, and affirmed.
Key facts
- Husarek was convicted of resisting an officer without violence after he fled from a uniformed officer who gave a verbal command with activated lights.
- Husarek appealed arguing the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the officer's intent to detain is an essential element of the crime.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is the first Third DCA decision to address whether a trial court's failure to sua sponte instruct on 'knowledge of intent to detain' in resisting-without-violence flight cases constitutes fundamental error, as… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.