TOMMY LEE GAINES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Tommy Lee Gaines was convicted of breaking and entering and attempted grand larceny after a bench trial. He appealed, arguing that his intoxication from heroin at the time of the alleged crime prevented him from forming criminal intent. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge's factual findings regarding Gaines's mental capacity and intent were not clearly erroneous.
The court held that whether Gaines had the mental capacity to form criminal intent while under the influence of drugs was a factual question for the trial judge to decide. The appellate court presumed the trial judge's factual findings and interpretation of evidence were correct, and Gaines failed to demonstrate reversible error.
[1] A defendant's claim of being under the influence of drugs and incapable of forming criminal intent at the time of an alleged crime is a question of fact for the trier of…
[2] Intent, being a state of mind, is often inferred from circumstances rather than proven directly.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defendant's defense of mental incapacity to form a criminal intent at the time of the alleged crime by reason of being under the influence of drugs was a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact from all the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Establishes that drug intoxication's effect on criminal intent is a factual question for the trial judge, not a matter of law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 1, 1969, Gaines was found inside a building with a hole cut in the roof used for drug storage. He had taken narcotics before entering and was e…
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 Attempted Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant-defendant was charged by information with breaking and entering and attempted grand larceny. He plead not guilty and waived jury trial. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to six years in the state penitentiary.
Counsel for the defendant announced at trial that the defendant’s only defense would be that he had taken heroin. Counsel also stipulated to the ownership of the property.
Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence on the grounds that the trial court erred in finding the defendant guilty because the defendant was under the influence of narcotic drugs and was unaware of his activities and incapable of forming a criminal intent at the time of the alleged crime.
It appears that on the night of May 1, 1969, the defendant, after taking narcotics, was found in a 'building with a hole cut in the roof, used for the storage of drugs. At the time he was apprehended, he was either under the influence of narcotics which he had taken or had already entered into a state of withdrawal. There was evidence that when the defendant was apprehended a quantity of drugs was being moved by the defendant from the place where they were kept to the vicinity of the hole that had been made in the roof. The defendant stated that he remembered nothing of the night of the alleged crime after he went under the influence of narcotics.
The defendant’s defense of mental incapacity to form a criminal intent at the time of the alleged crime by reason of being under the influence of drugs was a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact from all the facts and circumstances of the case. Intent being a state of mind, is often not subject to direct proof and can only be inferred from circumstances. On appeal, it is presumed that the trial judge’s interpretation of the evidence is correct and the burden is on defendant to show reversible error. Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 285; Crum v. State, Fla.*850App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Folks v. State, 85 Fla. 238, 95 So. 619.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Esaw Jones v. State, 192 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Folks v. State, 85 Fla. 238 (Fla. 1923)