Lawrence v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawrence v. State

565 So. 2d 868, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6108, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2038

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 1990

DocketNo. 89-925

StatusPublished

This text of 565 So. 2d 868 (Lawrence v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence v. State, 565 So. 2d 868, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6108, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2038 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Gerald Lawrence from a judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree murder entered below upon an adverse jury verdict. The defendant raises two points on appeal, neither of which present reversible error; we accordingly affirm.

First, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury on the elements of robbery which was allegedly required in order to fully instruct the jury on the defendant’s justifiable homicide defense. This is so because the evidence adduced at trial showed, without contradiction, that the deceased was not committing or attempting to commit a robbery upon the defendant at the time the defendant killed the deceased; the robbery which the deceased had previously committed upon the defendant had been completed prior to the killing in this case and, accordingly, could form no basis for a justifiable homicide of the deceased. The trial court was therefore not required to instruct the jury on the otherwise irrelevant offense of robbery as the subject robbery could not justify the homicide in the instant case. See Nunez v. State, 542 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smiley v. State, 395 So.2d 235, 236-37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Pressley v. State, 395 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1105 (Fla.1981).

Second, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress his statements to the police. This is so because the state established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject statements were freely and voluntarily given. Patterson v. State, 513 So.2d 1257 (Fla.1987); State v. Battleman, 374 So.2d 636, 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Gerald Lawrence from a judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree murder entered below upon an adverse jury verdict. The defendant raises two points on appeal, neither of which present reversible error; we accordingly affirm.

First, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury on the elements of robbery which was allegedly required in order to fully instruct the jury on the defendant’s justifiable homicide defense. This is so because the evidence adduced at trial showed, without contradiction, that the deceased was not committing or attempting to commit a robbery upon the defendant at the time the defendant killed the deceased; the robbery which the deceased had previously committed upon the defendant had been completed prior to the killing in this case and, accordingly, could form no basis for a justifiable homicide of the deceased. The trial court was therefore not required to instruct the jury on the otherwise irrelevant offense of robbery as the subject robbery could not justify the homicide in the instant case. See Nunez v. State, 542 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smiley v. State, 395 So.2d 235, 236-37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Pressley v. State, 395 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1105 (Fla.1981).

Second, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress his statements to the police. This is so because the state established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject statements were freely and voluntarily given. Patterson v. State, 513 So.2d 1257 (Fla.1987); State v. Battleman, 374 So.2d 636, 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 So. 2d 868, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6108, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack