JOHN EDWARD MERRITT, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
John Edward Merritt was convicted of first-degree murder and armed burglary, and sentenced to death despite a jury's recommendation of life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that evidence of Merritt's escape in 1985 was erroneously admitted because the state failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the escape and the Davis murder prosecution.
The court held that the escape evidence was erroneously admitted because the state failed to establish sufficient evidence that Merritt fled to avoid prosecution for the Davis murder rather than the unrelated charges. A jury could not reasonably infer consciousness of guilt regarding the Davis murder from an escape that occurred three years after the crime and during transport for unrelated charges, before Merritt was even indicted for the Davis murder. The admission of this evidence, combined with the court's jury instruction, could not be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] Evidence of flight is admissible to show consciousness of guilt only when there is sufficient evidence that the defendant fled to avoid prosecution for the charged offens…
[2] A jury cannot reasonably infer consciousness of guilt from flight that occurs years after the charged offense and during transport for unrelated charges.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Flight evidence is admissible as relevant to the defendant's consciousness of guilt where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant fled to avoid prosecution of the charged offense.”
Establishes the legal standard for admissibility of flight evidence as consciousness of guilt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarrell Davis was murdered and his home burglarized in 1982. In April 1985, the state executed a search warrant for Merritt's body hair and fingerprin…
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 Flight As Evidence Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
John Edward Merritt was convicted of first-degree murder and armed burglary. The trial judge imposed death over the jury’s recommended life sentence. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Darrell Davis was murdered and his home burglarized in 1982. In 1985 the state received information leading to Merritt who was serving time on an unrelated conviction in Virginia. In April 1985 the state executed a search warrant for Merritt’s body hair and fingerprints. Nine months later, (December 1985) he escaped while being transported to Florida for prosecution of charges unrelated to the Davis incident. In March 1986 Merritt was indicted for Davis’s first degree murder and armed burglary.
Merritt argues that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of the 1985 escape. We agree. Flight evidence is admissible as relevant to the defendant’s consciousness of guilt where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant fled to avoid prosecution of the charged offense. See Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903, 908 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981); State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Daniels v. State, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1959); Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224 (1920). However, flight alone is no more consistent with guilt than innocence. See Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548 (Fla.1984).
Merritt argues that the state failed to establish that he fled to avoid prosecution for the Davis murder as opposed to the other unrelated charges. We addressed a similar argument in Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 295, 93 L.Ed.2d 269 (1986). Bundy murdered two Tallahassee Chi Omega sorority sisters in January 1978. Kimberly Leach from Lake City was reported missing in February 1978. During Bundy’s trial for the Leach murder, the state introduced evidence that he fled twice in the six days following Leach’s disappearance. Bundy argued on appeal that the evidence was inadmissible because the state failed to prove that he fled to avoid prosecution for the Leach murder as opposed to the Tallahassee crimes. We found, however, that the jury could reasonably infer Bundy’s consciousness of guilt from his flights because they occurred only days after Leach’s much publicized disappearance.
Unlike Bundy, there is insufficient evidence in the instant case that Merritt fled to avoid prosecution for the Davis murder and burglary. Merritt escaped three years after the Davis murder. Although he was made aware of the murder investigation when the state executed its search warrant in April 1985, he did not attempt to escape until December 1985 during his return to Florida to stand trial on unrelated charges, including armed kidnapping, aggravated assault, and armed burglary. Merritt was not indicted for the Davis murder until March 1986. A jury could not reasonably infer from these facts that Merritt escaped to avoid prosecution for the Davis murder. Such an inference would be the sheerest of speculation.
Merritt was between a rock and a hard place once the court erroneously admitted the evidence. To rebut the state’s improper implication that he escaped to evade prosecution for the Davis murder, defense counsel introduced testimony that he escaped while being returned to Florida on unrelated charges. The court compounded the error by instructing the jury that an attempt to avoid prosecution through flight is a circumstance which may be considered in determining guilt. We cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that these errors did not affect the jury’s verdict. See DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
The necessity for a new trial moots Merritt’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we quash Merritt’s conviction and sentence, and remand to the trial court for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Shellito v. State, 701 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1997)…fer consciousness of guilt where sufficient evidence exists to establish that the defendant fled to avoid prosecution of the charged offense. Escobar v. State, 699 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1997); Harvey v. State, 529 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.1988); Merritt v. State, 523 So. 2d 573 (Fla.1988). The fact that a defendant has committed more than one crime within a short period of time does not preclude introduction of the evidence of flight where a sufficient evidentiary nexus exists to permit a jury to reasonably infer conscious…
-
Escobar v. State, 699 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1997)…s being tried in that specific case. This is necessary in the application of this rule of law since the evidence creates an inference of a consciousness of guilt of the crime for which the defendant is being tried in that case. See Merritt v. State, 523 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla.1988). The ultimate admissibility issue is the relevance to the charged crime. In Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1985), we specifically pointed to the fact that Bundy had fled from a law enforcement officer two days after the victim’s…
-
Twilegar v. State, 42 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2010)…s being tried in that specific case. This is necessary in the application of this rule of law since the evidence creates an inference of a consciousness of guilt of the crime for which the defendant is being tried in that case. See Merritt v. State, 523 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla.1988). The ultimate admissibility issue is the relevance to the charged crime. Escobar v. State, 699 So. 2d 988, 995 (Fla.1997) (emphasis added). The Court earlier had noted the following caveat: [T]he cases in which flight evidence has…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1968)
- Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)
- Tucker v. Zant, 454 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1981)
- Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1984)
- In re Florida BAR, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1959)
- Young v. Florida, 396 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1969)
- Caffey v. Missouri, 396 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1969)