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

the fiream or threatened Padgett with it I
The only evidence as to what
happened after leaving Carl Barton's trailer was the defendant's testmy,
which could not Ix rebutted by mahe Parker. (T. 2053-2054, 2056-2058).
?he defendant's t sthny indicates that he and Elaine agreed to take
Padqett into the to leave him there. (T, 1844). Since there was no
intent by the Parkers to "terrorize" or inflict bodily harm on Padgett, this
conduct, at mst, constitutes false imprisomt.
occurred during the carmission of this felony, the defendant would only be guilty
of third degree mder (assuming his defense of independent act, a question
for the jury, failed).
Since the killing of Padgett
Here, the state's entire case was based on argurrent that the defendant's
version was mt true.
other than the defendant's.
testified to by the defendant, and most idepdent evidence mrroborated the
defmdant's testinmy.
the hdcide nust be accepted,
There was no other version of Padgett's mder in evidence
There was no evidence to disprove any material fact
Under such cirmtmces, the defendant's version of
Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.
__- - ---
19?7), Map, supra; Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244 (1924); .-- Kelly v.
State, 99 Fla. 387, 126 So. 366 (1930). Flhere the defendant is charged as an
aid- and ahzttor, circwnstmtial evidence relied upan t~ shw his intent to
participate must preclude every reasonable inference that he did not intend
to participate.
K.W.U. v. State, 367 So, 2d 647 (Fla. 3rd D,C,A. 1979).
Mere presence at the scene of the c rk and efforts tn amid detection aftej-wards
is not sufficient ta justify a conviction.
D.M. v. - State, 394 So. 2d 520
(Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1981); J. J. v. State, 408 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1981).
?he statels case against the defendant in bunt I was based on conjecture,
insult and innuendo. The remedy is to reduce the judgment to a conviction of
third degree murder,
Page -53-