DAVONTE BARNES

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2155 Lower Tribunal No. F21-16663 ________________

Davonte Barnes, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ.

LINDSEY, J.

2

Appellant Davonte Barnes timely appeals his twenty-three felony convictions and life sentences. Finding no error, we affirm. We write to discuss two issues Barnes raises on appeal: the trial court’s rejection of the “Independent Act” jury instruction and its admission of the rap video “Mr. Pull Up” into evidence.¹

I.

BACKGROUND

This case is related to a mass shooting at the El Mula Banquet Hall on May 30, 2021. Three people died and twenty were injured. The State charged numerous alleged coconspirators in that shooting with homicide, attempt, and conspiracy offenses, alleging that a group led by the rapper Young Savage conspired to attack a rival crew centered on the rapper Foe Pack at El Mula. Barnes was charged with three counts of First-Degree Murder, twenty counts of Attempted First-Degree Murder, and one count of Conspiracy to Commit First-Degree Murder. The State argued at trial that Barnes was a principal to these offenses as the lookout sent to “peep” the scene and make sure Foe Pack and his crew were at El Mula so that Barnes’s associates could shoot them. Barnes’s counsel argued that he was not closely affiliated with the other codefendants and did not have knowledge of their intent to shoot anybody.

II.

ANALYSIS

Barnes argues on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting the video “Mr. Pull Up” because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.2 See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2024). He also argues that the trial court erred in failing to give the requested “Independent Act” jury instruction. We discuss each in turn. a. Admission of Video

A trial court’s admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., White v. State, 817 So. 2d 799, 806 (Fla. 2002). Barnes argues that the video should have been excluded under § 90.403: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” We disagree.

The main concern with the admission of rap videos in criminal trials is that if they appear to promote a violent or criminal lifestyle in general without

2 We decline to opine on any hearsay or confrontation issues as none were raised in the parties’ briefs. See Bainter v. League of Women Voters of Fla., 150 So. 3d 1115, 1126 (Fla. 2014).

As in Hayes, the shooting central to this case “was a continuation and consequence of preceding events, which were violent and retaliatory[,]” 338 So. 3d at 1131, and the video helps to explain why Barnes would agree to “peep” on Foe Pack and inform Young Savage of his whereabouts. It further sheds light on Barnes’s knowledge of the conflict’s nature and history, refuting his trial defense that he did not know that Young Savage’s intent towards Foe Pack was violent nor intend to play a role in any such violence. In the same way that flight from the scene of a crime can be probative of a defendant’s guilt, participation in a video celebrating a shooting is probative of Barnes’s motives for acting as lookout, his level of awareness of the

Barnes argues the trial court erred in refusing to give the “Independent Act” instruction to the jury. We disagree. The Independent Act doctrine applies when “after participating in a common plan or design to commit a crime, one of the [codefendants] embarks on acts not contemplated by the

3 Even if it was error to admit the video, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury was presented with overwhelming evidence of Barnes’s guilt in the form of his recorded confession that he knew Young Savage was planning to “hit up” El Mula, understood Young Savage and company intended to shoot people, and visited El Mula that day pursuant to an instruction “to peep the scene and leave.”