STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JIMMY STEWART, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of a second-degree murder charge against Stewart for the stabbing death of his girlfriend. The trial court granted Stewart's motion to dismiss based on his claim the stabbing was accidental, but the appellate court reversed, holding that circumstantial evidence of the wound's nature and the victim's incapacity sufficiently established a prima facie case for trial.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the nature, direction, and depth of the knife wound, combined with circumstances indicating the victim was immobile and physically helpless when stabbed, constitute sufficient facts and inferences to establish a prima facie case for second-degree murder, even where only the defendant and victim were present.
[1] A motion to dismiss an information under Rule 3.190(c)(4) should not be granted if any facts or inferences therefrom establish a prima facie case against the defendant.
[2] A defendant's version of events may be rejected if the circumstances surrounding the death demonstrate its falsity.
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“this procedure is no substitute for a trial, and if any facts or inferences therefrom establish a prima facie case against the defendant, it should not be granted”
Establishes the proper standard for evaluating motions to dismiss—trial courts must consider all facts and inferences, not just accept the defendant's allegations as determinative.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStewart was the only other person present when his girlfriend suffered a fatal knife wound to her heart, approximately four inches deep. The victim wa…
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 Imminently Dangerous Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The State appeals from the dismissal1 of an information which charged Stewart with second degree murder in connection with the stabbing death of his girlfriend. Stewart was the only other person present at the time of the stabbing, and in his sworn (c)(4) motion, he claimed the injury to the decedent was accidental, inflicted either by himself or by the decedent to herself, while they were struggling over a knife in bed. Although the State demurred to the (c)(4) motion, thereby admitting the facts alleged therein,2 the State argues that other factors present in the (c)(4) motion and in the record are sufficient to counter Stewart’s version that the stabbing was accidental. We agree and reverse.
As this court has repeatedly held in the context of a (c)(4) motion,3 this procedure is no substitute for a trial, and if any facts or inferences therefrom establish a prima facie case against the defendant, it should not be granted. State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Cramer, 383 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The trial court assumed the defendant’s version of the victim’s death as “accidental” must be accepted as true, and therefore second degree murder could not be proven. However, it is not infrequent that the defendant and the murder victim are the only people present at a crime scene. The state is certainly not precluded from trying to prove second or even first degree murder, based on the circumstances of the death. The general standard is that where the evidence is circumstantial, a conviction cannot stand unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977). However, if the circumstances show the defendant’s version is false, the defendant’s version may be rejected. See McArthur v. State; Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954); Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244 (1924).
Here the victim met her death as the result of a clean and forceful thrust of a knife, some four inches deep, through her heart. The type of wound and the direction of the blow are sufficient alone to cast considerable doubt on the defendant’s stories concerning an accidental cutting. Wrestling over the knife with such force that such a wound resulted was an act clearly imminently dangerous to the victim, and it also demonstrated Stewart’s lack of regard for human life. In this case this is particularly true because the record established facts indicating the victim was in a state of immobility and physical helplessness at the time of her stabbing. Her blood test showed she was highly intoxicated and when found dying by her mother, the victim’s lower garments were around her knees. There was no blood on the floor or furniture and only a small quantity on the bedsheets. These circumstances strongly suggest the decedent was lying immobile in bed when she was stabbed, and she never moved again.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4).
. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d).
. Fla.R.Crlm.P. 3.190(c)(4).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunn v. State, 454 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…7 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1983); Rose v. State, 425 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1982), cert. den., — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1883, 76 L.Ed.2d 812 (1983); Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982);3 State v. Stewart, 404 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Teague v. State, 390 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bouler v. State, 389 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Knight v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1981); Lowery v. State, 450 So. 2…
-
In the Interest of S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…s attack. This court, as well as other district courts of appeal, have consistently held that intent and knowledge are not proper issues to be decided on a motion to dismiss. State v. Alexander, 406 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Stewart, 404 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Alford, 395 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Evans, 394 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. McCray, 387 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Rogers, 386 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d…
-
Thomas v. State, 512 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff’d., 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Herman v. State, 472 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986); Dunn v. State, 454 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Stewart, 404 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Teague v. State, 390 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bouler v. State, 389 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Lowery v. State, 450 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Knight v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 399…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977)
- Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954)
- Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1924)
- State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Cramer, 383 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Highlands Gen. Hosp., 383 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)