ROBERT LAMURA, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed LaMura's manslaughter conviction as an aider and abettor to a shooting death during a drug deal, finding sufficient evidence of his knowledge and participation in the crime.
Evidence that LaMura knew of and participated in a forcible recovery attempt during a drug deal was sufficient to support his conviction as an aider and abettor to manslaughter.
[1] Knowledge of and participation in a forcible recovery attempt during a drug transaction may establish aiding and abetting liability for manslaughter.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaMura was tried jointly with Hulsey, the triggerman, for a shooting death arising from a drug deal gone sour where both men attempted to forcibly rec…
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 Aider And Abettor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a companion case to Hulsey v. State, 424 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) in which we affirmed a conviction for second degree murder. The appellant, La-Mura, was convicted of manslaughter after a joint trial with Hulsey, the triggerman in the shooting death upon which the homicide charges against Hulsey and LaMura were predicated. There was evidence presented at trial which suggested that the shooting took place as a result of a drug deal gone sour, and that both Hulsey and LaMura were in the process of attempting to forcibly recover the monies they had paid for the illicit drugs when the shooting took place. We believe the evidence of LaMu-ra’s knowledge of and participation in the episode would have been sufficient to support a finding that he was an aider and abettor to second degree murder and, hence, was sufficient to support his conviction of the lesser offense of manslaughter. See e.g. Beasley v. State, 360 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) and Davis v. State, 275 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). We also find no error in the trial court denying appellant’s requested instruction because we believe the substance of that instruction was adequately covered by other instructions given to the jury.
Accordingly we affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flounory v. State, 674 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…atal wound, Appellant, at a minimum, was an aider and abettor in the criminal event causing death and as such her act was not unconnected to or independent of the cause of death. See, e.g., Hall v. State, 403 So. 2d 1321 (Fla.1981); LaMura v. State, 424 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Diaz v. State, 600 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1992). GUNTHER, C.J., and STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
March v. State, 458 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…icipation in the episode would have been sufficient to support a finding that they were aiders and abettors to second degree murder, so the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of the lesser offense of manslaughter. See LaMura v. State, 424 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Kelly asserts the position that he was clearly trying to protect himself from March and Murphy so that his use of the rifle was in self-defense and he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. Unfortunately for his posit…
Authorities Cited
- Alton S. Beasley v. State, 360 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Davis v. State, 275 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Gunter v. Gunter, 275 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 424 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)