JESSIE CARPENTER, 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.
Jessie Carpenter was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting the victim through the heart with a .22 caliber rifle. She appealed arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain a murder conviction and that manslaughter was the proper charge. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the issues of self-defense and whether she acted with a depraved mind were properly submitted to the jury.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that both the issue of self-defense and whether Carpenter acted with a depraved mind were properly submitted to the jury as questions of fact, making the sufficiency of evidence challenge inappropriate.
[1] Whether an act is imminently dangerous to another and evinces a depraved mind, for the purposes of second-degree murder, is a question for the jury.
[2] Second-degree murder requires an act imminently dangerous to another, evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, even without premeditation.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the issues of self defense, and whether Carpenter acted with a "depraved mind" when she shot the victim through the heart with a .22 caliber rifle were in this case questions for the jury”
Establishes that factual questions about self-defense and the defendant's mental state are for the jury to decide, not the appellate court
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarpenter shot the victim through the heart with a .22 caliber rifle. The facts regarding the circumstances of the shooting, including whether Carpent…
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 Indifference To Human Life cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carpenter appeals from her conviction and sentence for second degree murder. She argues there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to sustain the jury’s verdict, and that at best the evidence would only sustain her conviction for manslaughter. We affirm on the ground that the issues of self defense, and whether Carpenter acted with a “depraved mind”1 when she shot the victim through the heart with a .22 caliber rifle were in this case questions for the jury. State v. Bryan, 287 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 912, 94 S.Ct. 2611, 41 L.Ed.2d 216 (1974); Nagy v. State, 459 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); McCauley v. State, 405 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1982); Mahone v. State, 222 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, J., and BOARDMAN, E.F., Associate Judge, concur. DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.
. Murder in the second degree is the killing of a human being by the perpetration of an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without a premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual. § 782.-04(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). An act is imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind if it is an act which:
(1)a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
Marasa v. State, 394 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981); The Supreme Court Committee, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Murder-Second Degree at p. 65 (1981 ed).
DAUKSCH, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
In my opinion there was insufficient evidence to convict appellant legally. There was no proof that the death was the result of ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. A conviction for manslaughter is sustainable, but not second degree murder, in my opinion. I would reverse the murder conviction and remand for entry of a manslaughter judgment. Marasa v. State, 394 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tanner v. State, 589 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…. Cochran v. State, 547 So. 2d 928 (Fla.1989); State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984); Gentry v. State, 437 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1983); Reimel v. State, 532 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1989); Carpenter v. State, 474 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Houston v. State, 394 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Horne v. State, 116 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bryan, 287 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1973)
- Marasa v. State, 394 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Mahone v. State, 222 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Migliorini v. New York, 417 U.S. 912 (U.S. 1974)
- Manzardo v. Pullman Co., 417 U.S. 912 (U.S. 1974)
- McAFEE v. State, 405 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Nagy v. State, 459 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)