GABRIEL GIL, 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.
Gabriel Gil appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and life sentence, claiming insufficient evidence and self-defense. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that once the deceased was subdued and disarmed, Gil was no longer in imminent danger and therefore could not lawfully claim self-defense.
The conviction is affirmed. Once the deceased was subdued and disarmed by Peguera, there was no imminent danger to Gil and no real necessity for taking the deceased's life. Therefore, self-defense was not a viable defense, and Gil's role shifted from pursued to aggressor.
[1] Self-defense in a homicide requires a reasonable belief of imminent danger and a real necessity to take a life.
[2] The privilege to use violence in self-defense does not extend to an assailant who is disarmed or helpless and no longer poses a threat.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In order to take advantage of self-defense in a homicide, the situation must be such as to induce a reasonably prudent person to believe that danger was imminent and that there was a real necessity for the taking of a life.”
Establishes the legal standard for self-defense claims in homicide cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 24, 1971, Gil and the deceased engaged in a violent argument and exchange of blows. The deceased later returned with a shotgun seeking Gil. A…
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 Imminent Danger cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-defendant, Gabriel Gil, appeals from a judgment of conviction of second degree murder and the subsequent life sentence based upon a jury verdict of guilty.
On April 24, 1971 defendant, the deceased, and Antonio Peguera were together when defendant and the deceased became involved in a violent argument that resulted in an exchange of blows. Following the argument the deceased, in a very agitated condition, returned to his home and shortly thereafter he left with a shotgun in search of defendant. Peguera and defendant had stopped at a U-Totem Store on their way home and as the two men attempted to leave the parking lot in their automobile, the deceased drove up behind their vehicle blocking their path. Peguera got out of his car and talked with the deceased in an attempt to calm him, but a struggle ensued over the shotgun which was discharged at least two times. During the struggle over the shotgun, defendant ran back into the store and borrowed a revolver from the clerk. The evidence adduced at trial shows that after defendant arrived back in the parking lot, Peguera had subdued the deceased by wrestling him to the ground and disarming him. Defendant then shot the deceased and at trial claimed his action was taken in self-defense.
. On appeal defendant urges that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for second degree murder and that self-defense was a viable defense.
In order to take advantage of self-defense in a homicide, the situation must be such as to induce a reasonably prudent person to believe that danger was imminent and that there was a real neces*45sity for the taking of a life. Darty v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 864. The slayer must actually and reasonably believe that it is necessary to act to save his own life or that of a member of his family. Raneri v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So.2d 291. Further, there is no privilege to use violence upon an assailant after the assailant is disarmed or helpless and all danger is clearly past. Prosser, Law of Torts III (3rd ed 1964).
The facts in the instant case are sufficient to show that after the deceased was subdued and disarmed there existed no real necessity for the taking of his life since defendant was not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The defendant’s role was reversed from the pursued to the aggressor, and in this posture defendant cannot claim to be acting in self-defense.
Defendant’s remaining points on appeal concern the improper translation of defendant’s testimony by the court’s interpreter and the subsequent failure of the court to grant a mistrial. Defendant contends that one day during the course of the trial, following the evening recess, a bilingual third party in the courtroom advised the defense attorney that certain words in the translation offered by the interpreter were inaccurate and prejudicial to the defendant;
The selection of a suitable person as an interpreter is largely a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Watson v. State, Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 161; Darby v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 29. The particular person, whose services were employed by the court in the instant case, is an excellent interpreter and had been used by the court on many previous occasions. No error was established, no witness called and no affidavits were filed by defendant to substantiate the allegations concerning the inaccurate translations. Further, defendant made no timely objections to the use of this particular interpreter, nor did he raise the question of whether the interpreter had to be sworn as a witness and he is now precluded from raising his objections for the first time on appeal. Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 510; Mahone v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 769; Shea v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 767.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed herein are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Irven George Pressley v. State, 395 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…f of a claim of self-defense in a homicide, a defendant must demonstrate that the situation would induce a reasonably prudent person to believe both that danger was imminent and that there was a real necessity for the taking of a life. Gil v. State, 266 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1972). Appellant has not carried that burden. Bolin v. State, 297 So. 2d 317 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 304 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1974). Furthermore, a person may not use violence upon his assailant, after…
-
Bolin v. State, 297 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…main witness, Kathleen Cilia, the victim’s girl friend, as well as other testimony in the record, and have concluded that the evidence in this case was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. See Darty v. State, supra; Gil v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 266 So. 2d 43; Hargrett v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So. 2d 298. We have also considered the two other points raised by the defendant on this appeal and find them lacking in substantial merit. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited and…
-
McKNIGHT v. State, 341 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…round of self-defense, the situation must be such as to induce a reasonably prudent person that danger was imminent and that there was a real necessity for the taking of life. Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864, 872-873 (Fla.2nd DCA 1964); Gil v. State, 266 So. 2d 43 (Fla.3rd DCA 1972). One who seeks to excuse homicide on the ground of self-defense must show that the killing was necessary at the time and that he did all he reasonably could to avoid it. State v. Coles, 91 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1956). [*263] The uncontr…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Watson v. State, 190 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)
- Shea v. State, 167 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Mahone v. State, 222 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Thomas v. State, 249 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Darby v. State, 216 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Frazier v. Louie L. Wainwright, 255 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Raneri v. State, 255 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)