AUDREY FAYE MCCLAMROCK, 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.
Audrey McClamrock was convicted of second-degree murder as an aider and abettor in the shooting death of her ex-husband by her current husband. The appellate court affirmed her conviction and life sentence, finding sufficient evidence of her intent to participate in the crime despite her claims of ignorance regarding her husband's gun and murderous intent.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that there was competent substantial evidence to prove McClamrock's intent to participate in the crime. The jury's resolution of the conflicting evidence against the appellant, combined with sufficient circumstances proving her intent, excluded any reasonable doubt of her guilt.
[1] A conviction as an aider and abettor requires proof of the intent to participate in the crime.
[2] A jury's resolution of conflicting evidence against a defendant will not be disturbed on appeal if there is competent substantial evidence to support the verdict.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“before an accused may be convicted as an aider and abettor, the intent to participate in the crime must be proved”
Establishes the legal standard required for aiding and abetting liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 14, 1973, McClamrock received a phone call from her ex-husband Gordon Stevens refusing to allow her visitation rights with their daughter. She…
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.
Appellant, Audrey McClamrock, was indicted for the first degree murder of her former husband, Gordon Stevens. A jury found her guilty of second degree murder, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment. She seeks reversal of her conviction and sentence on the grounds that the guilty verdict is not supported by the evidence, and the trial court erred in not granting her motion for acquittal. The facts giving rise to the indictment are as follows :
On July 14, 1973, the date of the killing, appellant received a phone call from her ex-husband, the deceased, who informed her that he was not going to allow her to exercise her visitation rights and see their minor daughter Chenina on the following day. She then woke up her present husband, Edward McClamrock, and informed him of the conversation she had with Gordon. After Edward unsuccessfully attempted to talk to Gordon on the telephone, he and the appellant got into their car and drove to Gordon’s residence. Upon arriving, Edward told the appellant to go get Gordon. Appellant went to the door and requested Gordon to come outside because Edward wished to talk with him. As Gordon came outside, Edward got out of the car and shot and killed him. Then, Edward and the appellant got into their car and drove away.
The theory upon which the prosecution grounded its case against the appellant was that she was an aider and abettor under § 776.011, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The established rule is that before an accused may be convicted as an aider and abettor, the intent to participate in the crime must be proved. Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 653.
Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove her intent inasmuch as she testified that on the day of the killing she did not know her husband had a gun or that he intended to kill her ex-husband. However, a review of the record on appeal reflects that there was competent substantial evidence to the contrary with respect to this issue of intent. One of the arresting officers testified that after reading the Miranda warnings to the appellant, she confessed to him that she knew her husband was going to kill the deceased. Appellant’s older daughter Cynthia Peel testified that on numerous occasions appellant had threatened the deceased.
The jury having resolved the conflicting evidence against the appellant, and the circumstances proving appellant’s intent in the case at bar being sufficient to exclude any reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt engendered by her explanation of her presence at the time and place of the commission of the crime, we will not disturb the judgment of conviction on appeal. See Wetherington v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 294; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1975, 307 So. 2d 877 and Douglas v. State, supra at 655.
Judgment and sentence affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 402 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…pholding first degree murder conviction of defendant who, knowing that one Kirsch planned to kill the victim, drove the victim to train station while Kirsch hid in the back of the car and watched while Kirsch killed the victim); McClamrock v. State, 327 So. 2d 780 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) (upholding second degree murder conviction of defendant who, knowing that McClamrock, her husband, intended to kill her ex-husband, Stevens, went with McClamrock to Stevens’ house and asked Stevens to step outside where he was kill…
-
Shockey v. State, 338 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…. A person who is charged with the commission of a crime may be convicted upon proof that he aided and abetted in the commission of the crime. See Fla.Stat. § 776.011; State v. Dent, Fla.1975, 322 So. 2d 543; and McClamrock v. State, Fla. App.1975, 327 So. 2d 780. Before an accused may be convicted as an aider and abettor of a crime, his intent to participate in the crime must be proved. While this intent may be proved in many ways, it cannot be based entirely upon circumstances unless those circumstances e…
-
Cable v. State, 436 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…or constructively present at the commission of such offense. Before one can be convicted as an aider or abettor, there must be proof of his intent to participate in the crime. Shockey v. State, 338 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); McClamrock v. State, 327 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The state must also show that the accused has done or said something which causes, encourages, assists, or induces the other person to actually commit the crime. G.C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In most cases of…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ira Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Gateway Ins. Co. v. Cipriani, 307 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)