DLD v. State (2002)

“In determining whether an incident or series of incidents creates substantial emotional distress for a victim, the distress should be judged not on a subjective standard (was the victim in tears and terrified), but on an objective one (would a reasonable person be put in distress when subjected to such conduct?).” D.L.D. v. State, 815 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla. 6 5th DCA 2002) (citing McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So. 2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)).

A. Appellant’s course of conduct caused substantial emotional distress to the victim “‘For determining whether an incident [causes] substantial emotional distress, courts must use a reasonable person standard, not a subjective standard.’ Thus, the question is not ‘was the victim in tears and terrified,’ but rather, ‘would a reasonable person be put in distress when subjected to such conduct?’” Gonzalez v. Funes, 300 So. 3d 679 , 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (alteration in origina…

As the Fifth District explained in D.L.D. v. State, 815 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002): [I]n determining whether an incident or series of incidents creates substantial emotional distress for a victim, the distress should be judged not on a subjective standard (was the victim in tears and terrified), but on an objective one (would a reasonable person be put in distress when subjected to such conduct?).

David, 189 So. 3d at 875 (citing Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235, 238 (Fla. 1995); Goudy v. Duquette, 112 So. 3d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)). “[T]he standard is that of a reasonable person in the same position as the victim.” Johnstone v. State, 298 So. 3d 660 , 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting T.B. v. State, 990 So. 2d 651 , 654–55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). “[T]he standard is case specific.” David, 189 So. 3d at 876 n.1. “[I]n determining whether an incident or series of inci…

As the Fifth District explained in D.L.D. v. State, 815 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002): [I]n determining whether an incident or series of incidents creates substantial emotional distress for a victim, the distress should be judged not on a subjective standard (was the victim in tears and terrified), but on an objective one (would a reasonable person be put in distress when subjected to such conduct?).

Thus, the question is not “was the victim in tears and terrified,” but rather, “would a reasonable person be put in distress when subjected to such conduct?” D.L.D. v. State, 815 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

NOTES [1] See D.L.D. v. State, 815 So.2d 746, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (concluding in an aggravated stalking case that "D.L.D.'s conduct, continuing on an almost daily basis, of pursing and hitting J.R. at school (a place J.R. had to be and could not avoid) ... would likely substantially upset any normal person under the reasonable person standard").

See D.L.D. v. State, 815 So.2d 746, 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (concluding in an aggravated stalking case that "D.L.D.’s conduct, continuing on an almost daily basis, of pursing and hitting J.R. at school (a place J.R. had to be and could not avoid) ... would likely substantially upset any normal person under the reasonable person standard”).