DEMETRIUS WILLIAMS TAYLOR, 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.
Demetrius Williams Taylor was convicted of first degree murder. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that the trial court erred in jury instructions regarding excusable homicide and in excluding evidence about the victim's prior conduct and arrests.
The court held that while the jury instruction on excusable homicide was technically error, it was not reversible error because no reasonable jury could have found the defendant not guilty under any theory of excusable homicide based on the evidence. The exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior conduct was proper because defendant did not know of those matters at the time of the homicide and the evidence was not in reputation form. The court costs issue was not addressed on the merits due to lack of sentencing hearing transcript but may be raised in a motion to correct sentence.
[1] A jury instruction on excusable homicide is erroneous if it fails to separate the different types of excusable homicide with the disjunctive "or."
[2] An erroneous jury instruction does not constitute reversible error if, under any theory of the evidence, the defendant could not have been found not guilty based on the e…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 no theory of the evidence presented at trial do we conclude the defendant could have been found not guilty based upon a finding of the existence of any of the three types of excusable homicide.”
Establishes that the erroneous jury instruction was harmless because the evidence could not support acquittal on any theory of excusable homicide.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Taylor stabbed a victim with a knife. According to defendant's own testimony, the victim came upon defendant suddenly, and defendant stabbed…
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 Excusable Homicide Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1372] LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm defendant’s conviction for first degree murder. Defendant’s first contention is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to excusable homicide without separating in that instruction, with the disjunctive “or,” the different types of excusable homicide.
We agree that this was error. See Parker v. State, 495 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See also Colon v. State, 430 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
However, we do not conclude that there was reversible error. Under no theory of the evidence presented at trial do we conclude the defendant could have been found not guilty based upon a finding of the existence of any of the three types of excusable homicide. See Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1983). Defendant’s own testimony was that the victim came upon defendant suddenly and that she stabbed out at the victim with a knife. Also, defendant did not object to the instruction and therefore failed to preserve the point for appeal. See Hyer v. State, 462 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). No fundamental error was involved; the instruction was separate and apart from defendant’s defense of self-defense. See Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970).
Defendant’s second contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of a prior arrest and prior “bad acts” of the murder victim. We do not agree.
The evidence was not admissible to show a reasonable apprehension of harm on the part of defendant because it is undisputed that defendant, at the time of the homicide, had not known of the matters sought to be introduced. See Banks v. State, 351 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Nor was the evidence admissible to prove whether the victim was the aggressor. Although reputation evidence may be admissible for that purpose, Banks, this evidence was not reputation evidence. Nor was the point preserved for appeal by an objection below. In fact, when the trial judge commented that the evidence would not be admissible, defense counsel said, “All right.”
We find no merit in defendant’s third contention that the trial court erred in imposing $200 court costs without a finding as to defendant’s indigency. The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the sentencing hearing. This is without prejudice to defendant filing a motion to correct sentence. See Haynes v. State, 486 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1990)…971). Testimony that other people knew of specific acts of violence committed by the victim is not relevant because it sheds no light on the defendant’s state of mind; it shows only that the victim had a propensity for violence. See Taylor v. State, 513 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Although reputation evidence may be valid for that purpose, “specific act” evidence is not. § 90.405, Fla.Stat.; see, e.g., Smith, 410 So. 2d at 580-81. However, “specific act” testimony of third parties may be admissible as cor…
-
Dupree v. State, 615 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…In the case at bar, the proffered testimony of the two witnesses divulges appellant’s attempt to introduce specific act testimony — not reputation evidence. Therefore, such evidence was inadmissible under section 90.405. See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 513 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see also Perrin v. Anderson, 784 F. 2d 1040 (10th Cir.1986). REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial consistent with this opinion. ERVIN, J., concurs with opinion. ZEHMER, J., concurs and dissents with opinion. . In gener…
-
Lozano v. State, 584 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…minent danger from the deceased. Burk v. State, 497 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Evidence regarding prior arrests and bad acts of a victim is also admissible to show a reasonable apprehension of harm on the part of the defendant. Taylor v. State, 513 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, evidence of prior arrests and bad acts is not admissible where, as here, a defendant has no knowledge of the matters sought to be introduced. See Mozqueda v. State, 541 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Taylor v. State, 513…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1970)
- THE Florida BAR v. Merwin, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1982)
- Willie Banks v. State, 351 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Colon v. State, 430 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Haynes v. State, 486 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Hyer v. State, 462 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Parker v. State, 495 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)