DENISE LAWYER, 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 erroneous jury instructions and evidentiary rulings that entitled a co-defendant to a new trial also require a new trial for the appellant due to intertwined defenses.
Denise Lawyer was convicted of second-degree murder, charged on a principal theory with co-defendant James Williams, who shot and killed the victim. L…
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 Principal Theory cases and more on FLexlaw
Denise Lawyer appeals her conviction and life sentence for second-degree murder, a crime for which she was charged on a principal theory with her co-defendant James Williams. The two were tried together for an incident in which her co-defendant shot and killed the victim outside a club in Broward County.
We reverse and remand for a new trial on the second-degree murder charge based on Williams v. State, 982 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), in which we reversed the conviction of her co-defendant as a result of an erroneous self-defense instruction as well as the trial court’s refusal to admit crucial evidence to his self-defense claim. Because Lawyer’s defense in this case was so closely intertwined with her co-defendant’s self-defense claim, we hold that the improper jury instruction and evi-dentiary rulings that entitled Williams to a new trial also require a new trial for Lawyer. If Williams were exonerated on a self-defense claim, then Lawyer would almost certainly be acquitted as well.
We affirm without further comment on the other issues in the case, except that on retrial, the trial court should not admit into evidence the post-arrest photograph of Lawyer, which depicted her in handcuffs in front of a sheriffs squad car at the scene of the incident. Lawyer’s identity was not at issue and this photo*221graph was not relevant to any material issue in the case.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
GROSS, C.J., WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.