HARVEY LEE OUTLER, 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.
Harvey Lee Outler was convicted of manslaughter in the death of Mabel and appealed, challenging the admission of prior assault evidence, exclusion of voodoo testimony, and sufficiency of evidence. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the prior assault evidence admissible, the voodoo testimony immaterial to the accidental shooting defense, and sufficient evidence supporting the manslaughter verdict.
The court held that the prior assault evidence was properly admitted as it tended to show the act was not accidental; the voodoo testimony was properly excluded as immaterial since Outler's defense was accident rather than self-defense; and sufficient evidence supported the manslaughter conviction.
[1] Evidence of a prior crime is admissible if it tends to prove that the act charged was not the result of accident, mistake, or inadvertence.
[2] A reasonable fear of a voodoo curse is immaterial to a criminal charge if the defendant does not claim self-defense and contends the act was accidental.
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“An exception to the general rule of exclusion of collateral evidence which tends to suggest the commission of an independent crime is where the evidence sought to be adduced tends to prove that the act charged was not the result of accident, mistake or inadvertence.”
Establishes the legal basis for admitting prior assault evidence when it shows intentionality rather than accident
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1964, Outler began a relationship with Mabel, who became increasingly possessive over the years. Mabel threatened to see Outler dead rather than wi…
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 Collateral Crime Evidence Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Harvey Lee Outler was indicted for the crime of second degree murder, tried by jury, found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 12 years in the state penitentiary. This appeal ensued.
The pertinent facts, briefly, are that in 1964, and thereafter, Outler was keeping company with Mabel. Mabel became quite possessive over the years. After she threatened to see “Outler dead rather than with another woman” and had made.several attempts to harm him with ice picks, knives and lye, Outler began to carry a gun to “protect himself.” In 1973, Mabel accosted Outler while he was seated in his automobile outside a liquor bar. Outler pulled a gun to scare her away from the door of the car. Mabel grabbed his arm, at which time the gun discharged, hilling Mabel.
Of the seven issues raised on appeal, we are of the opinion that three merit discussion: (1) That the court committed reversible error in permitting testimony of a collateral crime committed by Outler against Mabel, the decedent. (2) That the court erred in excluding expert and lay testimony about the reasonability of Outlets belief in voodoo. (3) That the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of manslaughter. As to the first issue, the record reflects that the prosecution asked Outler whether he had committed the crime of an assault on Mabel on November 26, 1970. Outler first denied it, then admitted to pleading guilty to the charge of assault and battery on Mabel. He was sentenced to time already served in jail. To this testimony Outler objected. An exception to the general rule of exclusion of collateral evidence which tends to suggest the commission of an independent crime is where the evidence sought to be adduced tends to prove that the act charged was not the result of accident, mistake or inadvertence. Williams v. State, Fla. 1959, 110 So. 2d 654 and Andrews v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 505. Since Outler had committed a previous crime of assault and battery against Mabel and then was charged in this case with killing Mabel, it is apparent that the evidence of a prior offense was admissible.
Next, it is contended that Mabel had put a voodoo curse on Outler and, therefore, it was error to exclude expert and lay testimony in this regard. There is no question that Outler has the right to hold his religious and spiritual views. However, he does not contend, nor does the record reflect, that the shooting of Mabel was in self-defense. He consistently contended that it was accidental. Therefore, a reasonable fear of a curse, if proved, would be immaterial. There was ample evidence that Outler had reason to fear Mabel and, therefore, a reason to possess a gun.
Finally, a review of the entire record discloses that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to return a verdict finding Outler guilty of manslaughter. Roberts v. State, Fla. 1925, 90 Fla. 779, 107 So. 242; Dolan v. State, Fla. 1956, 85 So. 2d 139.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 522 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1988)…ivation and intent in prosecution for murder of parole supervisor.) See also Mayberry v. State, 430 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wooten v. State, 398 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet for review dismissed, 407 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1981); Outler v. State, 322 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1976); Summit v. State, 285 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Hutchinson v. State, 102 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). The testimony by Lucas of an assault on an unnamed person prior to meeting McKay…
-
Santana v. State, 535 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…involving the defendant and the deceased was admissible to negate the defendant’s claim of accident in this case, see Ruffin v. State, 397 So. 2d 277, 280-81 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981); Outler v. State, 322 So. 2d 623, 624 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1976); Andrews v. State, 172 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); other testimony concerning this incident, although technically inadmissible, was merely cumulative of evidence properly admitted…
-
Wiley Linyer Hernandez v. State, 556 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…is v. State, 517 So. 2d 670 (Fla.1987). We find no error in the first two points urged for reversal. State v. Jano, 524 So. 2d 660 (Fla.1988); Jano v. State, 510 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), approved, 524 So. 2d 660 (Fla.1988); Outler v. State, 322 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see 1 C. Erhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.2, at 473-474 (2d ed. 1984); McCormick on Evidence § 297, at 856 (3rd ed. 1984). We do find error in the sentencing under the principles announced in Davis, and hereby set the sentencing a…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Andrews v. State, 172 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Dolan v. State, 85 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1956)
- Roberts v. State, 90 Fla. 779 (Fla. 1925)