JOHN MARK BEACHY, 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.
John Mark Beachy appeals his third-degree felony murder conviction, arguing the trial court reversibly erred by denying his request for a jury instruction on the independent act doctrine, which would have allowed the jury to determine whether his co-felon's acts exceeded the scope of their common plan. The appellate court agrees and reverses for a new trial.
The trial court reversibly erred in denying the independent act instruction. A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the law applicable to his theory of defense when there is evidence to support the requested instruction, and where evidence shows a co-felon's acts resulting in murder were independent from the underlying felony, the instruction must be given.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the independent act doctrine if there is evidence from which a jury could determine that the acts of a co-felon resulting…
[2] Under the independent act doctrine, a defendant is exonerated from punishment for a co-felon's independent act if the co-felon exceeded the scope of and acted independent…
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“under the independent act doctrine, a defendant whose co-felon exceeds the scope of, and acts independently of, the original common plan is exonerated from any punishment imposed as a result of the co-felon's independent act”
Establishes the legal principle underlying the independent act doctrine exception to felony murder liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeachy was convicted of third-degree felony murder. He sought a jury instruction on the independent act doctrine. Beachy made an unrebutted statement …
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 Law Of Principals cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Mark Beachy seeks reversal of his conviction for third degree felony murder, arguing that the trial court reversibly erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the independent act doctrine. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.6(1). As a general rule, the felony murder rule and the law of principals combine to make a felon liable for the acts of a co-felon. Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla.1982).
Nevertheless, under the independent act doctrine, a defendant whose co-felon exceeds the scope of, and acts independently of, the original common plan is exonerated from any punishment imposed as a result of the co-felon’s independent act. Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla.2000). Further, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense, if there is any evidence to support the requested instruction. Woodyard v. State, 823 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Mathews v. State, 799 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Langston v. State, 789 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Bozeman v. State, 714 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Thus, “[w]here there is evidence from which a jury could determine that acts of the co-felon resulting in murder were indepen dent from the underlying felony, a defendant is entitled to an independent act instruction.” McGee v. State, 792 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Here, appellant’s unrebutted statement to the police supported the granting of the independent act instruction, and at trial the prosecution stipulated to the appellant’s request for the instruction.
Accordingly, the trial court reversibly erred in denying appellant’s request for an independent act instruction, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marlo Washington v. State, 873 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…dent act doctrine provides that a defendant whose co-felon “exceeds the scope of, and acts indepen [*1270] dently of, the original common plan is exonerated from any punishment imposed as a result of the co-felon’s independent act.” Beachy v. State, 837 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.6(l). As the supreme court explained in Ray: The “independent act” doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed…
-
Hodge v. State, 970 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…commission, so long as the proof establishes that he was guilty of one of the acts denounced by the statute. Accordingly, “the felony murder rule and the law of principals combine to make a felon liable for the acts of a co-felon.” Beachy v. State, 837 So. 2d 1152, 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). That the state presented a prima facie case that Hodge participated in the attempted robbery of Beltran is unquestioned, and his attorney did not move for a judgment of acquittal on the attempted robbery charge. The focus…
-
Cannon v. State, 18 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…the evidence supports a theory of defense valid under state law, the trial court must grant a criminal defendant’s request that the jury be instructed on that theory. Davis v. State, 922 So. 2d 438, 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also Beachy v. State, 837 So. 2d 1152, 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Charles v. State, 945 So. 2d 579, 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Gregory v. State, 937 So. 2d 180, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his or her theory…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florida Plastering v. Alderman, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)
- RAY v. State, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)
- Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Aronson, 412 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1982)
- Bozeman v. State, 714 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Wilton James Langston v. State, 789 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Quincy McGEE v. State, 792 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Mathews v. State, 799 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Woodyard v. State, 823 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)