Mojica v. State
On rehearing, the Third DCA (2-1) reversed Mojica's felony child abuse conviction, holding that section 827.03(1)(d)'s statutory definition of 'mental injury'—which requires proof 'supported by expert testimony'—applies equally to prosecutions under section 827.03(1)(b)2 (an intentional act that 'could reasonably be expected to result in' mental injury), not just to prosecutions where actual mental injury resulted. Because the State presented no expert testimony on mental injury, the court held the evidence was insufficient and reversed the conviction and sentence, over a dissent by Judge Lindsey who argued the expert-testimony requirement applies only where actual mental injury is an element of the offense.
Key facts
- Mojica was charged with felony child abuse under Florida Statute section 827.03(1)(b)2 based on conduct that could reasonably be expected to result in mental injury to a child.
- The trial court convicted Mojica after the State presented evidence of the intentional act but provided no expert testimony regarding mental injury.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision directly affects how prosecutors must charge and prove felony child abuse based on mental injury in Florida, requiring qualified expert testimony even under the 'could reasonably be expected to result in… — 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.