HERSCHEL UPSHAW, 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.
Herschel Upshaw appeals his first-degree murder conviction arising from a robbery that resulted in the victim's death. The court reverses the murder conviction because the trial court abused its discretion by denying Upshaw's request for an independent act jury instruction, which would have allowed the jury to consider whether his co-defendant's killing of the victim was an independent act outside the scope of their common plan.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the independent act instruction. Where there is any evidence supporting a defendant's theory of defense, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on that theory. Upshaw's testimony that he heard gunshots as he was leaving and did not learn of Hill's true motivation until after the robbery supported his theory that he did not anticipate or consent to the murder.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an independent act jury instruction when there is evidence that a cofelon committed acts outside the common design of the original collaboratio…
[2] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on his theory of defense if there is any evidence, however flimsy or improbable, supporting that theory.
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“The 'independent act' doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, 'which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.'”
Establishes the legal standard for the independent act doctrine and when a co-defendant may be exonerated from liability for a co-felon's acts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUpshaw and two co-defendants, Robinson and Hill, planned to rob a man. Upshaw provided guns for protection and was to keep the victim under control. H…
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 Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Herschel Upshaw appeals his conviction of first-degree murder. We reverse because the trial court abused its discretion in denying Upshaw’s request for an independent act jury instruction.
Upshaw was indicted along with two co-defendants, Tessa Robinson and Jessica Hill, for first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. Upshaw was the only one of the defendants to testify at his trial, and he testified to the following. He was approached by his codefendants about rob bing a man whom Hill’s mother had dated and who Hill said had a lot of money. Upshaw’s role was to provide the guns, which were for their protection, and to keep the victim under control. Prior to executing the robbery, Hill said she was going to kill the victim, but neither Up-shaw nor Robinson took her seriously. During the robbery, Upshaw grabbed the victim and put him on the floor. He assured the victim that they just wanted his money, and they were not going to hurt him. At one point, Hill suggested they take the victim with them to the ATM to obtain money from his account, but Up-shaw protested and said that it was too risky to ride around with the victim and that he came along only to rob him. When the women finished going through the house and taking items, Robinson walked outside to the car. As Upshaw walked out the door, he heard gunshots and turned to see Hill standing over the victim and pointing a gun at him. As the three fled, Upshaw asked Hill why she had killed the victim and told her that the lolling was stupid. Hill responded that Upshaw did not know how long she had waited to kill the victim. Upshaw learned a couple of days later that Hill was motivated to kill the victim because he had allegedly raped her when she was younger. We agree with Upshaw that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for the independent act jury instruction. “The ‘independent act’ doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, ‘which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’ ” Pittman v. State, 841 So. 2d 690, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quoting Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000)). A defendant who does not participate in the independent act of his cofelon is exonerated from any punishment imposed for the independent act. Id.
Whether the independent act instruction should be given depends on the evidence.
“Where there is any evidence introduced at trial which supports the theory of the defense, a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense when he so requests.” Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla.1982) (citing Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So. 2d 798 (1945)). A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of defense “however flimsy” the evidence is which supports that theory, Vazquez v. State, 518 So. 2d 1348, 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), or however “weak or improbable his testimony may have been” [sic] Holley v. State, 423 So. 2d 562, 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). It is for the jury, not the court, to determine what weight to give the defendant’s evidence.
Arthur v. State, 717 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
Here, Upshaw’s testimony that he heard the gunshots that killed the victim as he was leaving the victim’s house and that he did not learn of Hill’s motivation to kill the victim until after the robbery supported his theory that he thought Hill was kidding when she mentioned killing the victim.
Accordingly, we affirm Upshaw’s conviction of robbery with a firearm but reverse his conviction of first-degree murder and remand for a new trial. Our reversal of Upshaw’s murder conviction will necessitate his resentencing for the robbery.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gregory v. State, 937 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ak or flimsy. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1982); Brozey v. State, 911 So. 2d 867, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Cartegena v. State, 909 So. 2d 414, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Upshaw v. State, 871 So. 2d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Arthur v. State, 717 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)); Garramone v. State, 636 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Simon v. State, 589 So. 2d 381, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Deveaugh v. State, 575 So. 2d 1373, 1374 (F…
-
Santiago v. State, 88 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…d for further proceedings. Generally, a defendant is entitled to have a jury consider his or her theory of defense as long as there is any evidence to support that theory. See, e.g., Bryant v. State, 412 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla.1982); Upshaw v. State, 871 So. 2d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (noting that “[a] defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of defense ‘however flimsy the evidence is which supports that theory” (quoting Arthur v. State, 717 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998))). However, the…
-
Brozey v. State, 911 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…thhold a jury instruction. Petrucelli v. State, 855 So. 2d 150, 154-55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support this theory. Upshaw v. State, 871 So. 2d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding criminal defendant entitled to instruction on defense however “flimsy” the evidence or however weak or improbable the testimony); Worley v. State, 848 So. 2d 491, 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The trial court abused its…
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 (11 total)
- Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545 (Fla. 1945)
- 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)
- Vazquez v. State, 518 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Short v. State, 423 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Holley v. State, 423 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- K. K. v. State, 717 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Arthur v. State, 717 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)