STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
HERMAN SHAW AND JONATHAN LACUE, RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding an attempted robbery of a Subway shop that occurred 30 minutes before defendants murdered and robbed a taxi driver. The Court held the evidence admissible to establish motive and intent, as the facts were inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes.
The evidence of the attempted Subway robbery is admissible because it is inextricably intertwined with the subsequent murder and robbery of the taxi driver and is necessary to establish the defendants' motive and intent for the charged crimes.
[1] Evidence of a prior attempted robbery is admissible to prove motive and intent for a subsequent robbery and murder when the prior incident is inextricably intertwined wit…
[2] The state may seek certiorari review of non-final pretrial orders in criminal cases if the exclusion of evidence significantly impairs the state's ability to present its…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 state argues that the evidence of the Subway incident is necessary in order to prove respondents' motive and intent to engage in the robbery of the taxi driver. The evidence is admissible, according to the state, because the facts of the Subway incident were "inextricably intertwined" with the subsequent murder of the taxi driver.”
Establishes the state's argument for admissibility under the inextricably intertwined test
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents Shaw and Lacue were charged with first-degree murder and robbery of a taxi driver. Both made post-arrest statements incriminating each oth…
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 Motive And Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court granted motions in limine excluding evidence of an attempted robbery of a Subway shop, which occurred about one-half hour prior to the crimes with which respondents are charged, first-degree murder and robbery of a taxi driver. The state seeks review by separate petitions for writ of certiorari, which we consolidate.
Both defendants made post-arrest statements incriminating each other, and each of those statements referred to the prior attempted robbery of the Subway shop. Because that robbery failed, and respondents needed money, they decided to rob a taxi driver and carried out that robbery in which the taxi driver died from a gun shot wound.
Apparently respondent Lacue had been in the taxi and respondent Shaw followed behind in a car. The state argues that the evidence of the Subway incident is necessary in order to prove respondents’ motive and intent to engage in the robbery of the taxi driver. The evidence is admissible, according to the state, because the facts of the Subway incident were “inextricably intertwined” with the subsequent murder of the taxi driver. Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966, 969 (Fla.1994).
The state seeks review pursuant to State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that the state may seek certiorari review of non-final pretrial orders in criminal cases, where the state’s ability to present its case is significantly impaired without the evidence which is the subject of the order. In order for the appellate court to review such an order, the order must constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law.
In State v. Cohens, 701 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), under practically identical facts, the second district granted certiorari review and concluded that the trial court had erred in excluding the evidence of an attempted robbery occurring about one-half hour prior to the robbery with which the defendant was charged. The court held that the evidence was admissible in order to show the motive and intent of the defendants. We agree with that decision and thus conclude that the evidence of the attempted subway robbery is admissible here. See also Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1995). We therefore grant certiorari and remand with instructions to admit the disputed evidence.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evans v. State, 800 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2001)…was testimony that Evans thought Lewis left the men in Sanford in order to steal Evans’ money in Orlando. See, e.g., Foster v. State, 679 So. 2d 747, 753 (Fla.1996) (evidence relevant to show defendant’s motive and ultimately intent); State v. Shaw, 730 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (evidence of prior attempted robbery admissible to show the motive and intent of the defendants); State v. Cohens, 701 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (evidence of prior attempted robbery admissible to show defendant’s motive…
-
Hayes v. State, 780 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…or the robbery and subsequent uttering of a stolen check was to obtain money for purchasing drugs. The trial court found this evidence to be relevant to the issue of appellant’s motive for the robbery. We find no basis to reverse. See State v. Shaw, 730 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and Caruso v. State, 645 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1994). [*920] Finally, with respect to appellant’s arguments that the Criminal Punishment Code is unconstitutional as a denial of due process and as constituting cruel and unusual punishm…
-
State v. Rambaran, 975 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ons, and involved different victims, the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that the collateral crimes evidence was properly admitted as inextricably intertwined evidence of a continuing criminal episode. Id. at 243-44; see also State v. Shaw, 730 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (granting State’s petition for writ of certiorari where trial court denied State’s motion to introduce evidence of an attempted robbery of a restaurant one-half hour prior to the robbery and murder of a taxi driver, finding…
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
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995)
- Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Cohens, 701 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)