JOHN HAYDEN vs STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D23-554 LT Case No. 2022-CF-4825 _____________________________ JOHN HAYDEN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Jeb T. Branham, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Natalie R. Gossett, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristie Regan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. December 8, 2023 PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges his conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and the prison sentence imposed following trial. Appellant argues that error occurred when, during the direct examination of the investigating officer, the prosecutor asked the officer if she determined who was the primary aggressor in the altercation between Appellant and the victim, to which the officer answered that it was Appellant, see Zangroniz v. State, 358 So. 3d 827, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“[T]he questioning of the officers about who they viewed as the ‘aggressor’ improperly invaded the province of the jury by soliciting witnesses’ opinions about the merits of [the defendant’s] self-defense claim, and ultimately his guilt or innocence.”), and then, during closing argument, when the prosecutor reminded the jury of this testimony. Appellant concedes that his trial counsel raised no objections to either the question and answer or the prosecutor’s comment during closing argument. He relies on the fundamental error doctrine for reversal. From our review of the record, we conclude that no fundamental error occurred and, therefore, affirm. AFFIRMED. LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and PRATT, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
