TYRONE TERELL LITTLE, 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.
Little was convicted of assault with intent to murder two police officers and conspiracy to commit that offense. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because evidence of the conspiracy was inadmissible without prior proof that Little was involved in planning the crime, and this tainted his assault conviction.
Little's conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial because evidence of conspiracy is inadmissible without prior proof of the accused's involvement in planning the crime. The conspiracy count was properly granted a new trial by the trial judge because there was no evidence directly connecting Little to the planning of the ambush.
[1] Evidence of conspiracy is inadmissible against an accused without a prior showing of the accused's involvement in the conspiracy.
[2] A conviction for assault with intent to murder may be tainted by inadmissible evidence of conspiracy if the evidence does not link the defendant to the planning of the cr…
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“We find no authority for the view that testimony that persons other than the accused planned a crime is admissible in the trial of the accused without a prior showing of the accused's involvement in the conspiracy.”
Establishes the core holding that conspiracy evidence requires foundational proof of the accused's involvement in planning before it is admissible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers responded to a call about a disturbance at a housing project and were shot. Little was present at the scene and later picked up his ow…
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 With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
MANN, Chief Judge.
Little was charged and found guilty on two counts of assault with intent to murder two police officers and one count of conspiracy to commit the offense. A new trial was granted as to the conspiracy charge. The question before us is whether Little’s conviction of assault with intent to commit murder is tainted by inadmissible evidence of conspiracy which did not link him to the planning of the crime.
The young men involved in this unfortunate incident called the police to their housing project to quell a fictitious disturbance. When they arrived, they were shot. There is evidence that Little was present at the scene and some evidence from which the jury might infer a sense of guilt after the occasion. For example, Little picked up his own rifle and carried it to the home of a cousin in another city. There is conflicting testimony about his possession of a gun at the scene but no evidence that the weapon which fired the shots which injured the police officers was Little’s.
In short, there is ample evidence of Little’s guilt as an aider and abetter and if the conspiracy count had not been added, we would be obliged to affirm. The trial judge correctly granted a new trial on the conspiracy count because there is no evidence whatever directly connecting Little to the planning of the ambush and the circumstantial evidence of his involvement is weaker than that in Honchell v. State, Fla.1971, 257 So. 2d 889. The state misreads certain language in Bass v. State, Fla.App.2d 1965, 172 So. 2d 614 at 617. That opinion should be taken to refer to those who participate as aiders and abetters whose criminal responsibility, of course, is the same as a principal, Fla.Stat. § 776.011 (1971), F.S.A., but conspiracy is a different thing. In Damon v. State, Fla.1973, 289 So. 2d 720, for example, there was evidence of the defendant’s presence during the planning of the crime. Evidence of complicity in the conspiracy is a prerequisite to admissibility of evidence concerning details of the conspiracy with which the accused is not directly linked.
We find no authority for the view that testimony that persons other than the accused planned a crime is admissible in the trial of the accused without a prior showing of the accused’s involvement in the conspiracy.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Honchell v. State, 257 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1971)
- Bass v. State, 172 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Damon v. State, 289 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1973)