COREY TERRELL SANFORD, 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.
Corey Terrell Sanford was convicted of attempted first-degree murder but appeals, arguing the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim's reputation for violence, which was essential to his self-defense claim. The appellate court reversed, holding that where a defendant raises self-defense and presents evidence of an overt act by the victim, evidence of the victim's violent reputation must be admitted.
The trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's reputation for violence constituted reversible error. When a defendant's sole defense is self-defense and he presents evidence of an overt act by the victim placing him in imminent danger, evidence of the victim's violent reputation must be admitted, and any doubts regarding admissibility must be resolved in favor of the accused.
[1] Evidence of a victim's reputation for violence is admissible when the defendant claims self-defense and there is evidence of an overt act by the victim indicating imminen…
[2] When a defendant's sole defense is self-defense, any doubts regarding the admissibility of evidence supporting that theory must be resolved in favor of the accused.
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“[W]here there is even the 'slightest evidence' of an overt act by the victim 'which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining great bodily harm,' all doubts as to the admissibility of evidence bearing on his theory of self-defense must be resolved in favor of the accused.”
Establishes the legal standard for admitting evidence of victim's violent reputation when self-defense is claimed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanford and the victim gave conflicting accounts of an incident involving a gun. Sanford testified the victim punched him, pulled out a gun, and Sanfo…
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 Attempted First Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Corey Terrell Sanford appeals his convictions and sentences asserting error in the trial court’s failure to permit defense counsel to elicit testimony as to the victim’s reputation in the community for violence. We reverse.
Sanford’s defense to the charge of attempted first-degree murder was self-defense. At trial, Sanford and the victim gave opposing renditions of the incident resulting in the charges. Each man testified that the other pulled out a gun, over which a struggle ensued. The eyewitness testified that he saw a struggle between the two men over a gun and that the gun fired during the struggle. The state attempted to impeach the eyewitness with statements he had allegedly given to the police at the scene. The state objected when defense counsel attempted to question the witness as to whether the witness was aware of the victim’s reputation for violence in the community. The court sustained the state’s objection, finding that defendant did not lay the proper predicate for the evidence; the court did not permit the testimony. On appeal, Sanford argues that this ruling was reversible error and prevented him from properly presenting his self-defense theory. We agree with Sanford’s contention.
Evidence establishing the victim’s reputation for violence may not be admitted without the proper predicate demonstrating an overt act by the victim indicating to the defendant the need for self-defense. Quintana v. State, 452 So. 2d 98, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Williams v. State, 252 So. 2d 243, 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). “[Wjhere there is even the ‘slightest evidence’ of an overt act by the victim ‘which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining great bodily harm,’ all doubts as to the admissibility of evidence bearing on his theory of self-defense must be resolved in favor of the accused.” Quintana, 452 So. 2d at 101 (citing Hawthorne v. State, 377 So. 2d 780, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)).
In this case, Sanford testified that when he encountered the victim, the victim punched him in the face, that the victim had the gun and pulled the gun on him; Sanford struggled with the victim to avoid being shot. The gun went off during the struggle, and not before. This rendition of the events was clearly sufficient to support the introduction of the evidence regarding the victim’s reputation for violence in the community. Where, as here, the defendant’s sole defense rests on his assertion of self-defense, we cannot conclude that sustaining the state’s objection was harmless error. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641, 643-44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Williams, 252 So. 2d at 247.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the convictions and sentences, and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Noble Williams v. State, 252 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Quintana v. State, 452 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Hawthorne v. State, 377 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)