RUDOLPH HUTCHINS, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in declining to give a jury instruction on accomplice testimony because there was insufficient evidence to establish the witness was an accomplice.
The defendant was convicted of robbery. The defense requested a jury instruction regarding the weight of accomplice testimony, based on the testimony …
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 Intent To Participate In Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against, tried by jury, found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in the state penitentiary for robbery.
Appellant raises five points in this appeal, only one of which merits some discussion, to wit: that the trial court erred in declining to give a jury instruction relating to the weight to be given an accomplice’s testimony.
This contention is based on the testimony given by one Daniel Morris who was present at the time of the robbery. Defendant-appellant argues that the jury could have found that Morris was an accomplice within the purview of the aider and abetter statute [§ 776.011, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.].
It has long been established that before one can be found to be an accomplice more than mere presence at the scene of the crime is necessary. Ryals v. State, 112 Fla. 4, 150 So. 132 (1933). Prior to any determination that Morris in the case sub judice was an aider and abetter and thus an accomplice, his intent to participate in the subject robbery must be proved. Furthermore, this intent cannot be based upon circumstances unless these circumstances exclude reasonable doubt engendered by his explanation of his presence at the time and place of the commission of the robbery. Douglas v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 653; Lockett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 253.
After a careful scrutiny of the record on appeal, we find there is a lack therein of any evidence demonstrating the requisite intent on the part of Morris or his actual participation in the crime. At most, testimony reflects that Morris, who lived only a block away, entered the market after the defendant and his accomplice, Bell, already were inside and Morris departed before the defendant and Bell. Therefore, we have concluded that the jury could not have found correctly that Morris was an accomplice and thus this point of appellant must fail.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGUIRE v. State, 639 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…t argument that McGuire raises is that the trial judge should have given the special instructions that he requested for the jury to expand upon the role of a principal. Specifically, that the mere presence at the scene of a crime, Hutchins v. State, 311 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), or [*1047] transporting someone from the scene of a crime, Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), does not mean that an accused knew a crime was going to be committed. McGuire argues that the standard instructions…
-
Elanor Burbank McBRIDE v. State, 338 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…assist him in his getaway by driving the car. Such a conclusion would rest only upon supposition unsupported by evidence. Compare Taylor v. State, 330 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1 DCA 1976); Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla.4 DCA 1972); Hutchins v. State, 311 So. 2d 198 (Fla.3 DCA 1975). There is not circumstantial evidence of such a conclusive nature and tendency as to show that Elanor was guilty of aiding and abetting her husband in the commission of this crime. The evidence presented is not inconsistent with inn…
-
Woodyard v. State, 823 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…, or the other evidence in the case does so, then you should find the defendant guilty. Here, as in Taylor v. State, 429 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), “there was sufficient evidence on which to base the instruction.” Cf. Hutchins v. State, 311 So. 2d 198, 198-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Without the putative accomplice’s testimony, the evidence would have been insufficient to convict. The defense’s theory was that the putative accomplice testified falsely at trial. The error was not harmless. See Goodwin…
Authorities Cited
- Johnnell Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Ira Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Ryals v. State, 112 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1933)