EDGAR JOHNNY HEWITT, 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.
Edgar Hewitt appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and robbery, challenging the trial court's denial of a jury instruction on the effects of habitual intoxicant use on insanity. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed on the instruction issue, finding it was reversible error to deny the requested Cirack charge, while affirming the trial court's other rulings.
The trial court erred in denying the requested Cirack instruction regarding the effect of excessive intoxicant use on insanity, constituting reversible error requiring a new trial. The trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the taped statement, as the voluntariness determination is reviewed with a presumption of correctness and the conflicting expert testimony regarding appellant's mental state does not warrant substituting the appellate court's judgment. The trial court did not err in admitting the crime scene and victim photographs.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that the habitual or excessive use of intoxicants can induce insanity when such an instruction is…
[2] A defendant's argument that a statement was involuntary due to police overreaching and the defendant's mental state is preserved for appeal when the trial court is specif…
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“the trial court erred in denying his special requested instruction on the effect of habitual use of intoxicants. On this point we reverse.”
Establishes the primary holding that reversal is required due to improper denial of the Cirack instruction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Hewitt was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum. At trial, Hewit…
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 Insanity Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for first degree murder and robbery and sentence to life imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum prison term. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his special requested instruction on the effect of habitual use of intoxicants. On this point we reverse.
At trial one defense of appellant to the charges against him was that he was insane as a result of excessive use of alcohol coupled with organic brain damage. The appellant requested a charge based on Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1967). Specifically, the appellant desired the court to include in the general charge on insanity a charge that excessive and continuous use of intoxicants can induce insanity. While the state claims that this was not preserved, our reading of the record reveals a specific request was brought to the attention of the trial court and the trial court refused to incorporate it. That is sufficient to preserve this issue for appeal. State v. Heathcoat, 442 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1983). As to the merits of the issue, we have held that the denial of a similar request for a Cirack charge was reversible error in Savino v. State, 555 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see also State Attorney for Twentieth Circuit v. McNally, 336 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Likewise, considering the expert testimony in this case, it was reversible error to fail to instruct in accordance with Cirack in this case.
The second issue raised which will affect retrial is whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress appellant’s taped statement. In the lower court the appellant argued that the statement was not voluntary based on the totality of the circumstances, including claims of police overreaching coupled with appellant’s mental state. The trial court’s ruling on voluntariness comes to this court clothed with the presumption of correctness. DeConingh v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1983), and we should not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court especially in a case such as this with conflicting expert opinions regarding the mental state of appellant. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling. We do not address other Miranda violations which appellant suggests may appear in the statement because these arguments were not made to the trial court, as appellant’s brief concedes.
As to the remaining issue raised, we find no error in the introduction of the photographs of the crime scene and the victim. Bauldree v. State, 284 So. 2d 196 (Fla.1973).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for a new trial.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brunner v. State, 683 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…nderstood by jurors who have only been read the standard instruction on insanity. It is important, therefore, that the Ci-rack instruction be given, so that they will know that this is a legally recognized form of insanity. In both Hewitt v. State, 575 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Savino v. State, 555 So. 2d 1237, 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), quashed in part on other grounds, 567 So. 2d 892 (1990), this court found reversible error where there was evidence to support a Ci-rack instruction, but the instru…
-
Wong v. State, 212 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 2017)…); Higgs v. State, 948 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Arthur v. State, 717 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Holland v. State, 634 So. 2d 813, 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hicks v. State, 622 So. 2d 14, 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Hewitt v. State, 575 So. 2d 273, 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); De Parias v. State, 562 So,2d 434, 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); cf. Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182, 1199 (Fla. 2001) (significant charge conference discussion); Davenport v. State, 429 So. 2d 1352, 1353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (…
-
Calandra v. State, 727 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ases holding that the failure to give a Cirack instruction was error. Brunner, 683 So. 2d 1129; Savino v. State, 555 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), aff'd on this ground, quashed in part on other grounds, 567 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1990); Hewitt v. State, 575 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). It was held in Preston v. State, 444 So. 2d 939 (Fla.1984) that the trial court did not err in denying a Cirack instruction based on defendant’s argument that lay testimony supported his insanity defense. Expert testimony is ad…
Authorities Cited
- DeCONINGH v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1983)
- Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1967)
- State v. Heathcoat, 442 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1983)
- Bauldree v. State, 284 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1973)
- Savino v. State, 555 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- State v. McNALLY, 336 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)