Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (Fla.1998), the supreme court held that section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes, which enhances the punishment for committing assault, aggravated assault, battery and aggravated battery committed against law enforcement and other specified public officers, does not create new substantive offenses and, by its plain language, does not apply to “attempts” to commit the enumerated crimes. The court explained: The enhancement statute contains no enhancement or reclassification of penalties for the offense of attempted commission of the enumerated offenses; therefore, attempted assault and attempted battery as well as attempted aggravated assault and battery of a law enforcement officer are nonexistent offenses. Id. at 385. The State argues that the supreme court has since determined that 05)(<HOLDING>). Accordingly, J.S.’s adjudication of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding where school principal was struck while trying to stop student fight transferred intent operates to transfer students intent to commit simple battery on classmate thus negating conviction for attempted battery on school official which requires heightened level of intent (B) holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two (C) holding sentence enhancement statute did not create offense of attempted battery on school employee and thus minors adjudication of delinquency should have been based on finding that minor committed attempted battery (D) holding that battery is clearly a factual determination readily resolved by the application of a legal standard defining battery to the facts in question (E) holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery
Output (English): holding that battery is clearly a factual determination readily resolved by the application of a legal standard defining battery to the facts in question