ALEXANDER FOSTER, 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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant was a principal to the charged crimes, and the exclusion of a co-defendant's statement was harmless error.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, armed kidnaping, armed robbery, and grand theft. He claimed insufficient evidence and error in excludi…
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 Independent Act Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*396] PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, armed kidnaping, armed robbery, and grand theft. Appellant claims that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he was a principal to the charged crimes. We think that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that appellant participated in both the robbery and murder of the victim. For example, appellant admitted his intent to participate in the robbery, he held a gun on the victim, and he shot the victim. See T.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The fact that the shot fired by the co-defendant, and not the shot fired by the appellant, actually killed the victim is immaterial to an analysis of liability as a principal.
Appellant also claims that it was error to exclude a statement by his co-defendant admitting his guilt as to the murder. We find that even if the statement should have been admitted, it clearly was harmless error, given appellant’s liability as a principal.
Finally, appellant objected to the trial court’s denial of his request for an “independent act” jury instruction. There was no error since the record is replete with evidence of appellant’s participation in the events. See Lovette v. State, 636 So. 2d 1304, 1307 (Fla.1994); Perez v. State, 711 So. 2d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
Affirmed.
WARNER, C.J., FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lovette v. State, 636 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1994)
- T.S. v. State, 675 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- G.T. McDONALD Enters., Inc. v. Frederick, 711 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Perez v. State, 711 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)