MARK LOUIS, 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.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's requested jury instruction, denied his motion for mistrial, and denied his motions for a directed verdict.
[1] A requested jury instruction is properly denied if it incorrectly states that an acquittal on all offenses, including lesser included offenses, is required upon a finding…
[2] A trial court does not err in denying a motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial remarks that have already been considered and rejected on appeal in a co-defendant's ca…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, claiming three errors occurred during his trial.…
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 Common Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Mark Louis appeals his conviction for first degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment. He claims three errors were committed below which necessitate the reversal of his conviction and sentence. We disagree and affirm.
First, the trial court quite properly denied the defendant’s requested jury in struction. The instruction incorrectly stated that the jury was required to acquit the defendant entirely [i.e., on first degree murder and all lesser offenses, including second degree murder and manslaughter] if it found that the killing of the decedent was the independent act of the co-defendant “committed outside and not in furtherance of a common plan to effect the premeditated murder of the decedent.” Plainly, if the jury made such a finding, an acquittal on first degree murder’ was required, but not on all lesser offenses. The requested instruction was therefore erroneous and was properly denied by the trial court. Blanton v. State, 52 Fla. 12, 41 So. 789 (1906) (syllabus by et., no. 1).
Second, the defendant’s complaint concerning the jury summation of the prosecutor has already been passed on and rejected by this court in the co-defendant’s appeal in this case. Philippe v. State, 443 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We think the trial court committed no error in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial based on these remarks.
Third, the trial court was correct in denying defense motions for a directed verdict. There was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have concluded, as it did, that the defendant had a premeditated intent to kill the decedent when the co-defendant, at the defendant’s order, fired two shots at the house where the decedent and other people were situated, killing the decedent. See Lee v. State, 141 So. 2d 257, 259 (Fla.1962); Larry v. State, 104 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla.1958); compare Sons v. State, 99 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 910, 78 S.Ct. 1157, 2 L.Ed.2d 1160 (1958).
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is therefore in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Larry v. State, 104 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1958)
- Sons v. State, 99 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- LEE v. State, 141 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1962)
- Eloy Blanton v. State, 52 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1906)
- Vega-Murrillo v. Looney, 357 U.S. 910 (U.S. 1958)
- Sons v. Florida, 357 U.S. 910 (U.S. 1958)