STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD JAMES MILTON, 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 State appeals from a trial court's dismissal of a first-degree murder indictment following a mistrial. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court improperly evaluated evidence and resolved factual disputes (self-defense and premeditation) that are exclusively for the jury to decide under Rule 3.190(c)(4) motions to dismiss.
The trial court erred in dismissing the indictment. On a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss, the trial judge must look only to the prima facie sufficiency of the alleged facts and may not evaluate the evidence. Questions of defendant's intent, self-defense, and premeditation are exclusively for the jury to decide by weighing evidence and judging witness credibility, not for the trial judge on a motion to dismiss.
[1] A trial court may not evaluate the evidence when ruling on a motion to dismiss an indictment under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; it must look onl…
[2] A defendant's intent, including issues of self-defense and premeditation, is not an issue to be decided by the trial court on a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss.
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 intelligence“Under Rule 3.190(c)(4), the trial judge must look only to the prima facie sufficiency of the alleged facts; the trial judge may not evaluate the evidence.”
Establishes the proper standard for reviewing Rule 3.190(c)(4) motions to dismiss—judges must not weigh or evaluate evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Milton was indicted for first-degree murder. At trial, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence and a…
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 Weighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order entered pursuant to a Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, motion in which the trial court dismissed the indictment charging defendant with first degree murder. We reverse.
Defendant was charged by indictment with first degree murder. At trial, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence and at the close of all of the evidence. The trial court denied both motions. However, the jury was unable to render a verdict; thus, the trial court declared a mistrial.
Three months later, pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure,1 the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, alleging that there was no material dispute of facts and that the evidence was legally insufficient to overcome defendant’s presumption of innocence. The State supplemented the facts alleged in the motion with trial transcripts and exhibits.
The court dismissed the indictment, stating:
[I]t is the court’s opinion, from the facts and evidence adduced at the trial of this cause, that the same are legally insufficient to convict the Defendant herein of first degree murder. The undisputed facts indicate that the victim in this case was the aggressor who attacked Defendant on a public street with an object and that the Defendant stabbed the victim while engaged in the defense of himself. There is some evidence that following such initial attack, the victim retreated into his yard and that the Defendant followed the victim and there fatally stabbed the victim. The body of the victim was found in or near the public street where the initial attack by the victim took place.
Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the evidence adduced at the trial of this cause was legally insufficient whereby any person could reasonably conclude that the Defendant killed the victim with premeditation after consciously deciding to effect the death of the victim.
The trial court erred in dismissing the indictment. Under Rule 3.190(c)(4), the trial judge must look only to the prima facie sufficiency of the alleged facts; the trial judge may not evaluate the evidence. See State v. Sheppard, 401 So. 2d 944, 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Additionally, in State v. Hricik, 445 So. 2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the court held:
A defendant’s intent is not an issue to be decided by the trial court on a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss. See, e.g., State v. Rogers, 386 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. J.T.S., 373 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. Alexander, 406 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Instead, it is for the trier of fact to determine the defendant’s state of mind by weighing the evidence and judging the credibility of the witnesses....
In this case, it is improper for the trial judge to consider the issues of “self-defense” and “premeditation” in the (c)(4) motion to dismiss. Both of these questions are for the jury, not the judge, to decide.
Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Milton’s motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, C.J., SHIVERS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
(c) Time for Moving to Dismiss. Unless the court grants him further time, the defendant shall move to dismiss the indictment or information either before or upon arraignment. The court in its discretion may permit the defendant to plead and thereafter to file a motion to dismiss at a time to be set by the court. Except for objections based upon fundamental grounds, every ground for motion to dismiss within the time hereinabove provided for shall be taken to have been waived. However, the court may at any time entertain a motion to dismiss on any of the following grounds:
(4) There are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant. The facts on which such motion is based should be specifically alleged and the motion sworn to.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Booker, 529 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…e assisted the actual perpetrator, but he must also have intended to participate in the crime. See Horton v. State, 442 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The issue of a defendant’s intent is not resolvable by a motion to dismiss. See State v. Milton, 488 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1012, 107 S.Ct. 659, 93 L.Ed.2d 713 (1986), quoting State v. Hricik, 445 So. 2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), stating that “[a] defendant’s intent is not an issue to be decided by the trial court on a Rule 3.1…
-
State v. Nadim Yaqubie, 51 So. 3d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ond degree murder charge under Rule 3.190(c)(4) for a fatal stabbing where “[t]he type of wound and direction of the blow are sufficient alone to cast considerable doubt on the defendant’s stories concerning an accidental cutting”); State v. Milton, 488 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (concluding that it was improper for the trial judge to consider the issues of self-defense and premeditation in a(c)(4) [*480] motion to dismiss since they were questions for a jury not a judge to decide). As was aptly sta…
-
State v. Snyder, 635 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…may not try or determine factual issues in a summary judgment proceeding. The court also may not consider the weight of conflicting evidence or the credibility of the witnesses in determining whether a material issue of fact exists. State v. Milton, 488 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 1012, 107 S.Ct. 659, 93 L.Ed.2d 713 (U.S.1986). Applying this test to the instant case, I would hold that the evidence establishes a prima facie case against the appellee and reverse for a trial on the merits.…
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
- State v. J. T. S. and G. R. W., 373 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. Rogers, 386 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Alexander, 406 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Sheppard, 401 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Hricik, 445 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)