Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In a prosecution for first degree mder, if the accused was present, aiding and abetting the mumission or attqt of one of the violent felonies listed in 8 782.04 (1) (a), Fla. Stat. (1981), and a homicide results frm the mrMnission of the underlying felony, the accused is as guilty of first degree murder as is the actual perpertrator; State v. Aguiar, 418 So. 2d 245 (Fla. - 1982); Ernravld v. State, 399 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1981). However, the liability of a felon for the acts of his co-felons is subject to the limitation that the lethal act mtbe in furtherance of the mtmn design or unlawful act the felons - set out to accanplish. Adarm v. State, 341 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1977); - Pope v. State, 84 Fla. 428, 94 So. 865 (1922). &cause it is the conmission of a homicide in conjunction with the intent to cwrrnit the felony that substitutes for the requirement of premeditation for first degree murder, it is necessary that there be saw causal connection between the homicide and the felony. Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982). Thus, if the hdcide was mitted as the independat act of a co-felon, and not a part of the mmn s&em or design, the accused is not guilty of first degree murder. Id. Florida is not alone in recognizing the "independat act" defense to felony-murder. See People v. - wood, 8 N.Y. 2d 48, 201 N.Y. S. 2d 328, 167 N.E. 2d 736 (Ct. ,App. 1960) : People v. Kauffman, 152 Cal. 331, 92 P. 861, (Sup. Ct. 1907); Mumford v. State, 19 Md. App, 640, 313 A. 2d 563 ('3. Sp. App. 1974). The pmsecution theory as to Count I was multiple; that the defendant and Tbmy Grmver ccmnitted a preditated murder of Richard Padgett because Page -28-
they were afraid of being killed by Padgett's family if his family found out that they had beaten Padgett up, (T. 2130-2131) ; that the defendant wanted Padgett killed t~ show he meant business in collecting mney for drugs (T. 2184- 2185): or that Padgettwas killed during a kidnapping for the purpose of inflicting bodily harm or to terrorize the victim, and that the defendant was assisting in the kidnapping. (T. 2263, 2274). me state's theory as to Count I11 was that Jcdy Dalton was killed to cover up the murder of Richard Padgett, a prditated murder. (T. 2261, 2275). As to Count I, there was substantial evidence to support the indepsndat act defense to the charge of felony-murder. defendant was not the least bit upset with Padgett. (T. 1141). Padgett wed the defendant nothing . (T. 1832-1833). The defendant had Grmver's jewelry to hold as collateral for any mney G mver owed, (T. 1826) so there was 110 urgency for the defendant to collect mney. care of the d&t the folldng day, IT. 1838), so there was no reason for Groover to kill Padgett for a drug debt. injured seriously by Grmver when &cover hit him With brass knuckles (T. 1840-1841), and txmk Padgett to Carl Barton's house to clean his wounds. (T. 1470, 1842). There was evidence that the defendant was unaware of &mver threatening Padgett with a gun. (T. 1845, 1935). The evidence indicated that the defendant did not know Padgettwas going to be killed, that he simply intended for than to drop Padgett in the wds to walk k. CT. 1844, 1494). Padgett's body had over $16 in his wallet when it was found (T. 1117-1118) , vhi& shms he was not killed for money. (T. 2130). The evidence showed that the defendant and Padgett were good friends (T. 1138, 1816). However, it was carmrw3n knowledge that there was "'bad blood" between Gmover and Padgett. (T, 1138, 1636, 1843). There was evidence that the aarlie B r m was going to take The defendant prevented Padgett frm being From this evidlence counsel could have argued that Groover killed Padgett for totally personal reasons, unreleated to any supposed schm or design to terrorize him to collect drug mney, and totally outside the scope Page -29-
Page 1 and 2: RPPEAL FffQM THE CIRCUIT COURIT OF
Page 3 and 4: V TRIAL COuIiT EXRED IN FAILING TO
Page 5 and 6: UNRELATED O??F'ENSE AS EVIDENCE OF
Page 7 and 8: ACEEY. mm, 33tlTo~7"T% (Fla. 4th ;D
Page 9 and 10: c?JME3IEV. smm 345 So. 2 d m CURRYV
Page 11 and 12: i%W'HW v. STATE j// So'.' 2d 7807Fl
Page 13 and 14: MCMILLANV. smm 4119 So. 2d 1-la. 3r
Page 15 and 16: 0 PRamCE v. STATE 337 So, 2d 7 n l
Page 17 and 18: mmv, STATE 2d =la. 1st D.C.A, 1982)
Page 19 and 20: 0 INTRODUCTION The appellant, Fbber
Page 21 and 22: of Other Crbs, Wrongs, or Acts. (R.
Page 23 and 24: 0 (T. 1128-1129).crooVer said nothi
Page 25 and 26: 0 going to kill "the mther fucker",
Page 27 and 28: this would alleviate any problem be
Page 29 and 30: took out his knife and stabbed Padg
Page 31 and 32: (T, 1342-1343). mng's rmther disapp
Page 33 and 34: he said it, "nobdy paid any mbd to
Page 35 and 36: told the defendant to "back off". (
Page 37 and 38: and said, Yh ny God". (T. 1260). tw
Page 39 and 40: out of the cay. and walked around b
Page 41 and 42: WHEXFER THE THE JUHI UPON THE LAW Q
Page 43 and 44: IX X WHlTIWB THE TRIAL ERRED IN m I
Page 45: XVIII WHEXfER THE TRUG COUW: FBRED
Page 49 and 50: ut munsel could not argue it becaus
Page 51 and 52: to the co-defendant, who continued
Page 53 and 54: participate in the killing, 2. If t
Page 55 and 56: Brother Caps. (T. 1185) (4). the de
Page 57 and 58: So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983).
Page 59 and 60: EXPW AND JTETIFY PLEA BARWWNG WITH
Page 61 and 62: type of rebuke counsel received. on
Page 63 and 64: utilized the stature of his office
Page 65 and 66: likewise improper for the State Att
Page 67 and 68: Payment of mney to a witness for an
Page 69 and 70: the prosecutor informed a juror onc
Page 71 and 72: the fiream or threatened Padgett wi
Page 73 and 74: from the operation of discowry rule
Page 75 and 76: I resides. Stanley, supra; - Florid
Page 77 and 78: Pernutting the reputation testby. o
Page 79 and 80: little probative value w kn it is c
Page 81 and 82: - The fact that a defendant refused
Page 83 and 84: The United States Supre court has s
Page 85 and 86: 'BE general rule is that statements
Page 87 and 88: The general rule is that a witness'
Page 89 and 90: any person the defense "expects to
Page 91 and 92: CR, 6167 T, 58-7 Penalty (R. 16-31
Page 93 and 94: Sheppard's necklace and ring me tak
Page 95 and 96: (-TT* 1032, 10491. An execution-sty
Page 97 and 98:
(5) W ilm Urgmn, the defendant's si
Page 99 and 100:
The defense also argued for mitigat
Page 101 and 102:
mitigating circumstance in a capita
Page 103:
CFRI'IFICATE OF SERVTCE I HEREBY CE
show all

Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?