Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
Robbery conviction reversed based on improper rulings of trial court
April 15, 2009
Topic: Criminal
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed a conviction against a Tampa man for attempted voluntary manslaughter and attempted robbery stemming from the robbery and shooting of a cab driver. The Defendant, along with a co-defendant was arrested. The Defendant's argument in the case was that the Defendant intended to not pay for the cab ride, but did not intend nor participated in the robbery or subsequent shooting of the driver done by his co-defendant. The cab driver could not identify the Defendant as the shooter and the State did not present evidence that the defendant knew that the robbery was going to occur nor that the Defendant took part in it.
The case was reversed based on two very puzzling decisions of the trial judge. First, the co-defendant's interview with the police was sought to be introduced by the Defendant. The co-defendant had moved and skipped out of town and did not show up for the trial. In that interview, the co-defendant admitted to having the gun involved in the shooting immediately after the robbery, admitted to changing his clothes after the robbery because he knew the police was looking for him, and made other statements which tended to show that the co-defendant was the shooter not the Defendant. The court denied admitting the testimony on hearsay grounds. The District Court ruled the statements should have been admitted based on the fact that the statements were relevant, corroborated by other evidence, and tended to show someone else may have committed an offense, otherwise known as a statement against self interest.
Secondly, the State sought to have a principal jury instruction read to the jury. Under the principal theory, a person can be guilty of the same offense as a codefendant if the person acted in concert with the person to help achieve the objective of the crime. The classic example is the getting away driver in a bank robbery. In this case, the evidence showed that one person ran from the scene while the other robbed the cab driver. The State's theory was that the Defendant was the shooter, but even if he was not the shooter, he acted in concert with his co-defendant and therefore could be found by the jury to be guilty as a principal.
This is the classic case of the prosecution trying to eat its cake and have it too. In this case, the defense attorney was attuned to this point and correctly objected to the instruction. The court ruled that the State was not entitled to the instruction, a point that the District Court ruled was error.
Because of the good work done by the experienced defense attorney, this Defendant is going to get a new trial and likely will be able to win on the retrial. If charged with a serious crime, such as a Jacksonville robbery, theft, or drug offense, call us to discuss. Our experienced attorneys can either negotiate a favorable settlement or take the case to trial.
