VICTOR MANUEL MARTINEZ, 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.
Victor Manuel Martinez appealed his second degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's instruction on flight as evidence of guilt, the prosecution's failure to produce the victim's criminal record, and the denial of a belated opening statement. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence supported the flight instruction, the prosecution had no duty to produce the rap sheet, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the late opening statement request.
The trial court properly instructed the jury on flight because sufficient evidence showed the defendant fled the scene immediately after the shooting. The prosecution had no duty to produce the victim's rap sheet because it was not in the prosecution's possession and the defense could have obtained it before trial through reasonable diligence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a late opening statement request when defense counsel admitted forgetting to make it at the appropriate time.
[1] A jury may consider evidence of a suspect's flight from the scene of a crime as a circumstance inferring guilt, provided the jury receives appropriate instructions.
[2] A trial court may properly instruct a jury on flight when evidence shows the defendant fled the scene of the crime and concealed weapons.
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“When a suspect endeavors to evade prosecution by flight from the vicinity of a crime, such fact may be shown as one of the circumstances inferring guilt which is to be considered by the jury under appropriate instructions.”
Establishes the legal principle permitting flight evidence as circumstantial evidence of guilt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinez was convicted of second degree murder. Immediately after a shooting in a bathroom, the defendant fled the scene and knocked an eyewitness unc…
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 Flight As Evidence Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Victor Manuel Martinez appeals a second degree murder conviction. Appellant first contends the trial court committed reversible error by including in the instructions to the jury a charge on flight on the ground that the evidence did not afford a basis for the charge. Specifically, appellant argues that the evidence demonstrated that he left the scene of the crime to take his wounded child to the hospital for treatment.
When a suspect endeavors to evade prosecution by flight from the vicinity of a crime, such fact may be shown as one of the circumstances inferring guilt which is to be considered by the jury under appropriate instructions. Mackiewicz v. State, 114 So. 2d 684, 689 (Fla.1959); Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666, 670 (Fla.1975).
The testimony of the State’s key eyewitness was that immediately after the shooting, the appellant fled from the bathroom (the scene of the crime) and knocked him unconscious in the process. In addition, the police officers testified that appellant had concealed two guns under the seat of his car. We conclude that was sufficient evidence to take to the jury the issue of whether appellant fled after the crime, and the court properly instructed the jurors with respect thereto. Cf. Hargrett v. State, 255 So. 2d 298 (Fla.3d DCA 1971),
Appellant secondly argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial on the ground that the prosecution had failed to produce the criminal record or rap sheet of the victim pursuant to the defense’s request to produce any criminal record which the deceased may have had in order to corroborate the appellant’s contention that he shot the deceased in self-defense. We cannot agree.
It is apparent that the prosecution did not have within its actual or constructive possession any rap sheet on the victim nor did the prosecutor have any knowledge thereof, but rather this information was obtained by the medical examiner through a contact with the FBI. See State v. Coney, 294 So. 2d 82, 87 (Fla.1974). It further appears that after the conclusion of the trial defense counsel did, in fact, obtain the victim’s rap sheet and could have obtained it before trial. Thus, the prosecution was under no duty to furnish the defense with the rap sheet when such evidence was otherwise reasonably attainable. See State v. Crawford, 257 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1972).
Last, appellant contends the trial judge committed reversible error in denying defense counsel’s request to make an opening statement after the defense had commenced with the presentation of its case and its second witness was in the midst of testifying.
We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to allow defense counsel to make an opening statement at this late date where he frankly admitted he had forgotten to make it at the appropriate time. See Henderson v. State, 158 Fla. 684, 29 So. 2d 698 (1947) and cases cited therein. Moreover, we cannot say that the failure to present an opening statement resulted in defense counsel being ineffectual.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 378 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…n this case so it was inappropriate and prejudicial error to give the instruction. See also Noeling v. State, 40 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1949), Proffitt v. State, 315 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1975), Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1975), Martinez v. State, 346 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977), Williams v. State, 268 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972), Hargrett v. State, 255 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971), Betancourt v. State, 228 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969), Benitez v. State, 113 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). Appella…
-
Batey v. State, 355 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…find the existence of flight and other circumstances indicating appellant’s guilt. Therefore, the flight may be considered as a circumstance of guilt under an appropriate instruction. Proffitt v. State, 315 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1975); Martinez v. State, 346 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Palmer v. State, 323 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and cases cited therein. Such instruction is not improper as a judicial comment upon the evidence. We have considered the comments by the prosecutor in his closing argument an…
-
Highsmith v. State, 580 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…evidence convincingly displayed the fact of flight. See, e.g., Proffitt v. State, 315 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1975), judgment aff'd, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976); Batey v. State, 355 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Martinez v. State, 346 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1977). Even if we were to assume it is appropriate to apply the flight instruction to a circumstance involving a defendant’s use of aliases, the evidence must be relevant to the offense then being tri…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simkins Indus., Inc. v. Moreira, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Wilmon Coney, 294 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1973)
- Blackburn v. Cochran, 114 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1959)
- MacKiewicz v. State, 114 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. Crawford, 257 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1972)
- Hargrett v. State, 255 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Henderson v. State, 158 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1947)