ADOLFO GERDA DELAGADO, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Adolfo Delgado was convicted of manslaughter for shooting and killing an unarmed man and wounding another during a verbal altercation in his apartment. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Delgado's self-defense claim and finding no error in the prosecutor's closing argument.
The conviction for manslaughter is affirmed. There was no valid self-defense claim because the men were unarmed and posed no imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; Delgado killed them solely for verbal abuse. The prosecutor's closing argument did not improperly reference Delgado's right to remain silent.
[1] Self-defense is not justified when the accused kills or wounds another solely in response to verbal abuse and threats, without evidence of an overt act indicating imminen…
[2] A prosecutor's comment that the jury has heard from "everybody in this case" does not improperly refer to a defendant's right to remain silent when the context suggests i…
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“In order to justify a homicide on the ground of self-defense the situation must be such as to induce a reasonably prudent person to believe that danger was imminent and that there was a real necessity for the taking of life.”
Establishes the legal standard for self-defense in Florida homicide cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelgado, the deceased, and a third man were listening to music and drinking in Delgado's apartment when an argument broke out between the deceased and…
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 Prosecutorial Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Appellant, convicted of manslaughter, appeals on the ground that the State had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
The State relied exclusively on Appellant’s statement, which was to the effect, that he, the deceased and a third man were listening to music and drinking in appellant’s apartment. The other two men started arguing. Appellant quieted them. Appellant then went to the bathroom and the two men started threatening him. Neither of the men were armed but one man did have possession of a bottle. Appellant returned from the bathroom with a gun, told the two men to leave and they proceeded to call him names. Appellant then stated that he “shot Juan to scare him.” He fired several more shots and ran.
Appellant killed one unarmed man and wounded the second because they verbally abused him. There is no self-defense here.
“In order to justify a homicide on the ground of self-defense the situation must be such as to induce a reasonably prudent person to believe that danger was imminent and that there was a real necessity for the taking of life. O’Steen v. State, 1927, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 So. 725. When threats are considered in relation to the defense that the accused killed in self-protection, there must be evidence of an overt act which would induce a reasonable belief that the threatened person will lose his life or sustain serious bodily injury unless he immediately takes the life of his adversary. State v. Coles, Fla.1956, 91 So. 2d 200. The law disparages the kind of ‘self-defense’ which would subject human life to ‘the mercy or cowardice or capricious impulse of one whose easily awakened fear prompts him, who is armed with a deadly weapon, to strike upon what at best may be called a hostile demonstration on his victim’s part.’ Collins v. State, 1925, 88 Fla. 578, 102 So. 880, 881.” Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864, 872-73 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). (emphasis added).
Appellant’s second point is that the following prosecutorial comment improperly referred to the appellant’s right to remain silent:
“I say to you in this particular case I don’t think you have a lack of evidence in this case. You have a total case. You have heard just about from everybody in this case. Let me say to you that you don’t have an insufficiency of evidence to reach a decision on in this particular case.” (T. 263).
In view of the quoted statement, appellant’s argument is highly contrived. While the statement may imply that not everyone was heard from, any such implication would appear to refer to a police officer who failed to show up for the trial and whose name was called by the bailiff, or to the “other man” who was with appellant and decedent. The comment does not imply that appellant has failed to testify.
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court should be
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Godinez v. State, 480 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Blount v. State, 67 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1953); Gardner v. State, 54 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1951); Scholl v. State, 94 Fla. 1138, 115 So. 43 (1927); Delagado v. State, 361 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); McLaughlin v. State, 286 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).…
-
Smiley v. State, 395 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…t expressing an intention to immediately execute the threats so that the person threatened has a reasonable belief that he will lose his life or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary. Delagado v. State, 361 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Coles, supra. However, in order to be entitled to instruction on self-defense, there must be some evidence that the defendant acted out of self-defense. If any evidence of a substantial character is adduced, either upon cross-e…
-
Lopez v. State, 632 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1990). According to the evidence presented by the state, the jury could have found that defendant, without prior warning, shot and killed the unarmed victim following the victim’s verbal abuse of the defendant. See Delgado v. State, 361 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Evidence of cocaine in the victim’s system was properly excluded. The defendant had no knowledge of the alleged drug use, and thus the evidence had no bearing upon the defendant’s state of mind and resultant actions. Lozano v. S…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- O'Steen v. State, 111 So. 725 (Fla. 1926)
- Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- State v. Ola Coles, 91 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1956)
- Collins v. State, 88 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1925)