MILTON EARL MCFARLANE, 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.
Milton McFarlane appeals his conviction for second-degree felony murder arising from the death of his armed accomplice during a robbery and police chase. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, rejecting McFarlane's challenges to the admission of photographs and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.
The trial court properly admitted the photographs because they had probative value regarding multiple issues including identification, necessity of deadly force, presence of a firearm, nature of wounds, and crime scene layout. There was no break in the chain of events between the robbery and the accomplice's death sufficient to relieve McFarlane of criminal responsibility for the felony murder.
[1] Photographs of a deceased co-defendant are admissible into evidence when they have probative value on issues such as identification, the necessity of deadly force, the pr…
[2] A trial court's decision to admit photographs into evidence will not be disturbed unless the decision is clearly abusive or patently in error.
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“Because the photographs had probative value on the issues, we cannot agree with appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting them into evidence.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing admission of photographic evidence and affirms the trial court's discretionary decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcFarlane and an accomplice committed a robbery and fled the crime scene in a stolen Monte Carlo. Police spotted and chased the vehicle. McFarlane sur…
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 Felony Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
McFarlane’s first contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a number of colored photographs of the deceased co-defendant. A review of the record shows that the photographs were used to prove many issues at trial including the identification of the co-defendant, whether deadly force was necessary, the presence of a firearm, the nature and extent of the wounds, and the layout of the scene where the body was found. Because the photographs had probative value on the issues, we cannot agree with appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting them into evidence. See Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); cert. denied, 429 U.S. 998, 97 S.Ct. 524, 50 L.Ed.2d 608 (1976) (trial court’s decision to admit photographs should not be disturbed unless clearly abusive or patently in error); King v. State, 545 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA) (same), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1989); Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (same), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 472 (Fla.1979).
Nor do we agree with appellant that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the second-degree felony-murder charge. Shortly after the robbers left the crime scene in a stolen Monte Carlo, they were spotted and chased by police officers. The defendant surrendered; the armed decedent was shot by an officer as he continued to flee on foot through a residential neighborhood. We hold that there was no break in the chain of events sufficient to relieve the appellant of criminal responsibility for the death of his accomplice. Campbell v. State, 227 So. 2d 873 (Fla.1969), cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 801, 91 S.Ct. 7, 27 L.Ed.2d 33 (1970); Mills v. State, 407 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Finding no error in the other points raised by the appellant, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 776 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ls under the felony murder statute, the more recent supreme court case of Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 369, 376 (Fla.1994), looked for a “break in the chain of circumstances” between the killing and the underlying felony. See also McFarlane v. State, 593 So. 2d 305, 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that no “break in the chain of events” occurred to relieve the defendant of “criminal responsibility for the deal of his accomplice”). To determine whether such a break had occurred, the supreme court considered that…
-
Olsten Health Servs., Inc. v. Edmond Cody, 979 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…dmissibility of evidence will not be reversed on appeal unless trial court abused its discretion). Photographs are admissible if relevant to establish a material fact in the lawsuit. See Bush v. State, 461 So. 2d 936 (Fla.1984); McFarlane v. State, 593 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In the instant case, Cody’s counsel argued that Nurse Edwards’ negligence, which occurred in 2000, resulted in almost six years of additional treatments and procedures. Contrary to Gentiva’s assertion, Cody, through Cuzzell’s tes…
-
Emilio Sanchez-Basulto v. State, 601 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…at trial and their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. Thompson v. State, 565 So. 2d 1311 (Fla.1990); Haliburton v. State, 561 So. 2d 248 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2910, 115 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1991); McFarlane v. State, 593 So. 2d 305 (Fla.3d DCA 1992). Finally, we hold that the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument were not “ ‘fairly susceptible’ of being interpreted by the jury as referring to ... defendant’s failure to testify....” David v. State, 369 So. 2d 943, 944 (…
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 227 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1969)
- Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Ne. Marine Terminal Co., Inc. v. Caputo, 429 U.S. 998 (U.S. 1976)
- Gaddy v. Michael, 429 U.S. 998 (U.S. 1976)
- Mills v. State, 407 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Ronny A. Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Campbell v. Florida, 400 U.S. 801 (U.S. 1970)
- Blount v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 400 U.S. 801 (U.S. 1970)
- Ogden King, Jr. v. State, 545 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)