RICHARD A. LEWIS AND PHILLIP H. GATEWOOD, APPELLANTS,
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.
Richard Lewis and Phillip Gatewood appealed their convictions for manslaughter in the death of Solonger Pace, arguing that the prosecutor improperly referred to them as "marauders" and that the trial court erred in refusing certain jury instructions on accomplice liability. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions.
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the alleged prosecutor misconduct could not be reviewed because the prosecutor's closing argument was not recorded or verified in the record, and that the trial court's general jury instructions on accomplice liability and combined criminal conduct were sufficient to cover the subject matter of the requested instructions.
“When several persons combine together to commit an unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his associates committed in furtherance or prosecution of the common design, and if several persons combine to do an unlawful act, and in the prosecution of the common object a culpable homicide results, all are alike criminally responsible for probable consequences that may arise from the perpetration of the unlawful act they set out to accomplish.”
The trial court's instruction to the jury on the criminal responsibility of accomplices—establishing that all who combine to commit an unlawful act share equal criminal responsibility for its consequences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis and Gatewood were jointly indicted with John W. Kirkland for the first-degree murder of Solonger Pace. Kirkland was tried separately and found g…
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 Common Design cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants appeal from a judgment and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding them guilty of manslaughter. Appellants and John W. Kirkland were jointly indicted for the first degree murder of Solonger Pace. Kirkland was tried separately and found guilty of second degree murder. Appellants were tried together. The evidence presented indicated Appellants were fighting or arguing with Pace when Kirkland ran up and stabbed Pace. There is evidence in the record upon which the jury could conclude that Appellants and Kirkland combined to commit manslaughter.
According to Appellants’ brief the prosecuting attorney referred to them as "marauders” in his closing argument which was not recorded and is not verified by the record. The silence of the record as to the existence of such alleged statement precludes its review by this Court.
The Florida Supreme Court in Brooks v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 914, stated:
"[2,3] Appellant’s contention on the second question is that the state attorney improperly in his closing argument referred to the appellant’s past criminal record. The argument of the state attorney does not appear in the record, except for what is shown in the motion for new trial, but such motion is not self proving. The court is unable therefore to review the question. Norris v. State, 150 Fla. 686, 8 So.2d 493; Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59, 191 So. 36; Hulst v. State, 123 Fla. 315, 166 So. 828.”
This court has specifically recognized the above rule in Houghton v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 133 So.2d 111.
Appellants also urge as error the refusal of the trial court to give certain jury instructions relating to persons who combine together to commit an unlawful act. On this issue the trial court instructed the jury as follows:
"When several persons combine together to commit an unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his associates committed in furtherance or prosecution of the common design, and if several persons combine to do an unlawful act, and in the prosecution of the common object a culpable homicide results, all are alike criminally responsible for probable consequences that may arise from the perpetration of the unlawful act they set out to accomplish. The immediate injury from which death ensues is considered as proceeding from all who are present and as proceeding from all who have abetted the injury done, and the actual perpetrator is considered as the agent of his associate. His act is their act as well as his own, and all are equally guilty.”
*746The rule is well recognized in Florida that if the subject matter of any requested instruction is covered by the court’s general charge to the jury it is not error for the court to refuse to instruct the jury as requested by Appellants. See Register v. State, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 73; Spanish v. State, Fla. 1950, 45 So.2d 753; Munn v. State, 158 Fla. 892, 30 So.2d 501.
In the light of the record it must be presumed that the instruction requested by Appellants was covered by the Court in his general charges to the jury.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, A. C.'J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. State, 201 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…t’s other points have also been considered and found to be without merit. See Johnson v. State, Fla.1961, 130 So. 2d 599; Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654; see also Burns v. State, 150 Fla. 869, 9 So. 2d 106; Lewis v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 744. Affirmed.…
-
Harris Miami Beach Corp. v. Suskin, 226 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346, 45 So. 1011; O’Bryan v. Linton, Fla.1949, 41 So. 2d 169; Lindquist v. Burklew, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 261; Lewis v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 744. Also see: Buckalew v. Buckalew, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 564; Althouse v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 859.…
Authorities Cited
- Mahlon Hulst v. State, 123 Fla. 315 (Fla. 1936)
- Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1939)
- Spanish v. State, 45 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1950)
- Odom v. State, 150 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1942)
- Brooks v. State, 64 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1953)
- News-Journal Corp. v. Gore, 150 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1942)
- Norris v. State, 150 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1942)
- Munn v. State, 158 Fla. 892 (Fla. 1947)
- Irwin Oliver Houghton v. State, 133 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)