MILOT RICHARDS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Milot Richards appealed his conviction, challenging the use of a six-person jury in his non-capital criminal case and related trial procedures. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, relying on established precedent that six-person juries are constitutional in non-capital criminal cases.
The court affirmed Richards's conviction, holding that Florida's use of six-person juries in non-capital criminal cases is constitutional under Williams v. Florida, and that the trial court did not err in denying the mistrial motion because the state's closing argument comments were a fair response to defense statements.
[1] Florida law permits the use of a six-person jury in non-capital criminal cases.
[2] An assault is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.”
Florida statute establishing that six-person juries are valid in non-capital criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichards was convicted in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court of assault-related charges. His trial involved jury proceedings and closing arguments where …
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 Assault Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 6, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0957 Lower Tribunal No. F21-18511
________________
Milot Richards,
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. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 913.10, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.”); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970) (upholding Florida’s use of a six-person jury in non-capital cases);
Cunningham v. Florida, 144 S. Ct. 1287 (2024) (denying petition for writ of certiorari to review Williams); id. at 1288 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (noting the
Court has “twice turned away thoughtful petitions asking [the Court] to correct
[its] mistake in Williams”); see also § 784.011(1), Fla. Stat. (2021) (“An
‘assault’ is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.”); § 784.021(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) (“An ‘aggravated assault’ is an assault . . . [w]ith a deadly weapon without intent to kill . . . .”); State v.
Williamson, 348 So. 3d 48, 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (finding a “prima facie case of an overt act” when defendant brandished a weapon in the victim’s direction); Howard v. State, 245 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (noting aggravated assault requires, inter alia, “the act of the defendant created in the mind of the victim a well-founded fear that violence was about to take place”); Johnson v. State, 888 So. 2d 691, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“[T]he fact the victim did not testify, and thus could not describe or articulate any such fear, does not bar a conviction. Instead, if the circumstances are such as would ordinarily induce fear in the mind of a reasonable person, then the victim may properly be found to have been in fear.”) (internal citations,
quotations, and alterations omitted); Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“[W]here the circumstances were such as to ordinarily induce fear in the mind of a reasonable man, then the victim may be found to be in fear, and actual fear need not be strictly and precisely shown.”);
Herring v. State, 132 So. 3d 342, 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding “no error in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for mistrial because the state’s comments during closing argument were a fair response to the statements made by appellant”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milot Richards v. State, 348 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 913.10, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.”); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970) (upholding Florida’s use of a six-person jury in non-capital cases); Cunningham v. Florida, 144 S. Ct. 1287 (2024) (denying petition for writ of certiorari to review Williams); id. at 1288 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (noting the Court has “…1 / 2
-
N.H. v. State, 358 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…fendant’s intent is a question reserved for the trier of fact. See T.R.W., 48 Fla. L. Weekly at D341c; Puy v. State, 294 So. 3d 930, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); State v. Cowart, 301 So. 3d 332, 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); see also State v. Williamson, 348 So. 3d 48, 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the question of intent is precisely the type of question that should be left to the trier of fact). The reason for this is that intent is normally “inferred from the acts of the parties and the surrounding ci…
-
State v. Yanes-Blanco, 401 So. 3d 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970)
- Ulysses Ulice Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Johnson v. State, 888 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Milot Richards v. State, 348 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Howard v. State, 245 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Kendrick Duncan Herring v. State, 132 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)