RONALD SANDS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ronald Sands appealed his conviction for two counts of attempted manslaughter with a firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, finding sentencing errors under applicable Florida precedent.
Sands was not entitled to a directed verdict. The jury had the province to disregard expert testimony and rely solely on lay witness testimony, so the trial court properly rejected the motion for directed verdict.
[1] A jury may disregard expert testimony and rely solely on the testimony of lay witnesses.
[2] A trial court is correct in rejecting a motion for a directed verdict when a jury has the discretion to disregard expert testimony.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It was within the province of a jury to disregard the expert testimony and to rely solely on the testimony of the lay witnesses.”
Establishes that the jury had discretion to evaluate conflicting evidence and prefer lay testimony over expert testimony in determining sanity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSands was convicted of two counts of attempted manslaughter with a firearm and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a crimin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attempted Manslaughter With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Sands appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence entered in the trial court, finding him guilty of two count of attempted manslaughter with a firearm and one count of the unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense.
On appeal, Sands contends he was entitled to a directed verdict because of expert testimony which supported his plea of insanity, notwithstanding lay testimony that he acted in a normal manner at the time of the commission of the crime charged. We disagree.
It was within the province of a jury to disregard the expert testimony1 and to rely solely on the testimony of the lay witnesses. Therefore, the trial court was correct in rejecting the motion for directed verdict. Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1974); Davis v. State, 319 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); McClain v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Cozart v. State, 399 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The State concedes error, at least in the sentencing on the unlawful possession of a firearm count while engaged in a criminal offense. We agree. See: State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.1981).
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the convictions on the two counts of attempted manslaughter with a firearm are affirmed. The adjudication on the possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense is affirmed,2 but the sentence thereon is hereby vacated and set aside. The sentences on the two counts of attempted manslaughter appear to be in violation of Villery v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 396 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1981) and are therefore vacated and the matter is returned to the trial court for resentencing, in accordance with the pronouncements in Villery.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court with directions.
. There were three experts who testified; two were in agreement that the defendant was suffering from pathological alcohol intoxication and the third was of the opinion that the defendant was suffering from schizoid and psychotic tendencies. Therefore, even the experts were not in agreement as to what was the nature of the alleged illness.
. No double jeopardy claim was made in the trial court. See: Hines v. State, 401 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cronin v. State, 470 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…rier of fact even when that testimony is uncontradicted. See Collins v. State, 431 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Trucci v. State, 438 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). A jury is free to weigh an expert’s testimony, and may reject it. Sands v. State, 403 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Ward, 374 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Nevertheless, once such testimony is adduced, the jury should be instructed on what to do with it. Here, the jury was not so instructed; consequently, there is a reasonable poss…
-
Everett v. Brown, 670 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…nvictions. Accord Laines v. State, 662 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), D2515 (reh. den. Nov. 15, 1995); Irizarry v. State, 578 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), disapproved on other grounds, Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992); Sands v. State, 403 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). But see, e.g., Sirmons v. State, 634 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1994); Kurtz v. State, 564 So. 2d 519, 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“Nothing in the statute suggests that the legislature intends the judiciary to convict defendants of offenses for…
-
State v. McMAHON, 485 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…itness testimony regarding appellee’s sanity. However, it was the jury’s prerogative to rely solely on the lay testimony and disregard the testimony of appellee’s expert witnesses. Cronin v. State, 470 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Sands v. State, 403 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Obviously, the jury did just that in finding the defendant guilty. Given the jury’s right to judge the credibility of witnesses and its right to accept or reject expert testimony, we conclude that the verdict was not contrary to…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Villery v. The Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 396 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Rivers, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1974)
- Hines v. State, 401 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Delma Davis v. State, 319 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- McCLAIN v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Hilton Alexander Mullins v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Cozart v. State, 399 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Page v. State, 399 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)