RUTH MARY LAYTHE, 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.
Ruth Mary Laythe was convicted of second-degree murder after being charged with first-degree murder in the death of Eladio Diaz. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defendant's theory that she had validly withdrawn from the conspiracy to commit the murder.
The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on withdrawal from the conspiracy. A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any defense theory that is supported by evidence in the record, regardless of the judge's personal view of the defense's merits.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a theory of defense if there is any evidence introduced to support that instruction.
[2] A trial court errs by refusing to instruct the jury on a defense if there is evidence to support the defense and the defense raises an issue of fact in the defendant's fa…
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“A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence introduced to support the instruction.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that jury instructions on affirmative defenses must be given when supported by evidence, regardless of judicial skepticism
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaythe and Rick Carter conspired to steal money from drug dealer Eladio Diaz. When Carter suggested killing Diaz, Laythe refused. The next day, Laythe…
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 Withdrawal From Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Ruth Mary Laythe, was charged by indictment with first degree murder. She was tried by jury, found guilty of second degree murder, and convicted and sentenced to 25 years in the state penitentiary.
The evidence showed that defendant Laythe and a friend, Rick Carter, conspired to steal money from one Eladio Ramon “Lalo” Diaz, a black Cuban drug dealer whom Laythe knew to have a lot of money. Carter stated “we’ll have to kill him,” and Laythe said “no, forget it.” The next day, Laythe brought Lalo to her apartment. Carter was there. Laythe stated that she looked at Carter and shook her head, meaning no. Some thirty minutes later, she followed Carter into the bathroom and stated, “Rick I want you to leave, I’m not going to do it, I don’t ever want to see you again.” Rick started to leave. Laythe went into the kitchen to fix a drink and then she heard a shot. Over a period of two or three minutes, Carter shot Lalo three more times until he was dead.
At the charge conference, defense counsel requested that the jury be instructed as to withdrawal from the conspiracy based on the defense that Laythe timely terminated her involvement well before Carter committed the offense. The court denied the instruction proposed by defense counsel, but acknowledged that, “somewhere in the deal, a person could withdraw,” and suggested a different instruction on withdrawal. The state objected to any charge on withdrawal, the court reserved ruling and then decided not to instruct on withdrawal.
On appeal, defendant Laythe contends that the trial court erred in failing to include the defendant’s requested instruction or the court’s own alternative instruction on withdrawal. We agree. “However disdainfully the trial Judge may have felt about the merits of such defense from a factual standpoint, however even we may feel about it, is beside the point.” Koontz v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 204 So. 2d 224, 227. A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence introduced to support the instruction. Canada v. State, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 753; Stiglitz v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 270 So. 2d 410. As stated in 41 C.J.S. Homicide § 368, where there is evidence in support of any defense offered by an accused which raises an issue of fact in his favor,
“. . . the court should present the issue by an affirmative instruction which fairly and fully declares the law applicable thereto . . . and it is error for the court, while stating the charge on the evidence against accused, to refuse or omit to charge the jury as to the defenses which are set up by him, and which there is evidence to support
It appears from the record that there is evidence to support defendant Laythe’s defense of withdrawal. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. The other point raised by the defendant on appeal will not be discussed.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)…So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Stiglitz v. State, 270 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), justifiable homicide, Stinson v. State, 245 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Whitehead v. State, 245 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), and withdrawal, Laythe v. State, 330 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1976). All these defenses concern either the defendants’ innocence or their legal excuse in committing a crime. None of them entail the commission of a crime other than the one charged in the indictm…
-
Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…uctions on the law. Frazee v. State, 320 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The law is very clear that the court, if timely requested, as here, must give instructions on legal issues for which there exists a foundation in the evidence. Laythe v. State, 330 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). It is not a sufficient refutation of appellant’s argument to suggest that her counsel’s summation sufficiently apprised the jury of the effect of intoxication on the scienter required to support the charge to relieve the Court o…
-
LEE v. State, 368 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…the trial was lawful or not. The trial court’s denial of the requested instruction on this issue was thus a prej- [*398] udicially erroneous3 failure to charge on a theory of defense supported by an acceptable view of the evidence. Laythe v. State, 330 So. 2d 113 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 356 So. 2d 46 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). In the ordinary case, such a finding of error in the jury charges would result in a new trial at which correct instructions would be gi…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canada v. State, 139 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Merlin Evans v. State, 204 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Johnson v. State, 204 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. OF the Dep't OF Bus. Reg., 270 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Stiglitz v. State, 270 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)