ESTEBAN SANTANA, 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.
Esteban Santana appeals his convictions for second-degree murder and unlawful firearm possession, arguing various evidentiary and procedural errors. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient and all challenged evidentiary rulings either proper or harmless.
The court held that: (1) circumstantial evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury; (2) no discovery violation occurred; (3) evidence of prior threats and prior shooting incidents was properly admitted; and (4) other technically inadmissible evidence concerning drug use, statements by the defendant's mother, and statements by the deceased were not so prejudicial as to overturn the convictions.
[1] Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a jury verdict for the crimes charged.
[2] A Richardson hearing is not required when there is no discovery violation.
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“the evidence of guilt in this case, although circumstantial, was sufficient to send the case to the jury on the crimes as charged in the information”
Establishes that circumstantial evidence alone can support murder conviction if sufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSantana was convicted by jury verdict of second-degree murder and unlawful firearm possession during the commission of a felony. The prosecution prese…
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 Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Esteban Santana from judgments of conviction and sentences for (1) second-degree murder and (2) unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony which were entered below based on adverse jury verdicts. The defendant raises a multitude of points on appeal, none of which presents reversible error; we, accordingly, affirm.
First, the evidence of guilt in this case, although circumstantial, was sufficient to send the case to the jury on the crimes as charged in the information. See Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210, 211 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Dellinger v. State, 495 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), cert. denied, 503 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1987); Bradwell v. State, 468 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 987, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); LaChance v. State, 396 So. 2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Second, there was no discovery violation below, and, consequently no Richardson hearing was required to be held. See Matheson v. State, 500 So. 2d 1341, 1342-43 (Fla.1987); Jackson v. State, 369 So. 2d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1980).
Third, evidence that several months prior to the murder the defendant threatened to shoot the deceased was properly admitted in evidence. See Morris v. State, 487 So. 2d 291, 293 (Fla.1986); Jones v. State, 440 So. 2d 570, 577 (Fla.1983); Goldstein v. State, 447 So. 2d 903, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Fourth, evidence of a prior shooting involving the defendant and the deceased was admissible to negate the defendant’s claim of accident in this case, see Ruffin v. State, 397 So. 2d 277, 280-81 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981); Outler v. State, 322 So. 2d 623, 624 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1976); Andrews v. State, 172 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); other testimony concerning this incident, although technically inadmissible, was merely cumulative of evidence properly admitted and thus was harmless. See Feimster v. State, 491 So. 2d 321, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1986); Brunette v. State, 456 So. 2d 1324, 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Henao v. State, 454 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Fifth, evidence of (a) the defendant’s drug use, (b) a statement made by the defendant’s mother, and (c) a statement by the deceased two months before the homicide, although technically inadmissible, were not so prejudicial to the defendant as to upset the instant convictions. § 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1985). Cf. Pritchett v. State, 414 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1982); Ballard v. State, 323 So. 2d 297, 300-01 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Lopez v. State, 264 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 268 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1972); Mahone v. State, 222 So. 2d 769, 771-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Finally, the remaining points have no merit and require no discussion.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…s gun, he grabbed his friend’s gun.2 The gun was also relevant to prove that the act charged was not the result of mistake, accident or inadvertence. The gun was admissible to negate the defendant’s claim of accident in this ease. Santana v. State, 535 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). After extensive argument on the relevance of the gun, the trial court admitted it, thus implicitly concluding that the probative value of the gun outweighed the prejudicial effect. Accordingly, where the trial court has [*95] we…
-
Santana v. State, 569 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Santana v. State, 535 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F. 2d 803 (11th Cir.1984); Corn v. Zant, 708 F. 2d 549 (11th Cir.1983).…
Authorities Cited (27 total)
- Johnson v. Florida, 454 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1981)
- Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1984)
- Ruffin v. State, 397 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1981)
- Garrison v. Hudson, 469 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1984)
- Perry v. Lockhart, 469 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1984)
- Jones v. State, 440 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1983)
- Andrews v. State, 172 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Mahone v. State, 222 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Dellinger v. State, 495 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Ballard v. State, 323 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)