West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog : Ronald Chapman: West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer | Florida Criminal Attorney: DUI, Assault & Battery, Felonies | Criminal Law Firm

           An article that appeared two days ago in the Orlando Sentinel reported that an autopsy performed on Florida A & M drum major Robert Champion concluded that his death was a homicide.  But what type of homicide will those responsible for his death ultimately be charged with?  first degree murder?  second degree murder?   third degree murder?  manslaughter?

          My guess is that they may likely be charged with the crime of manslaughter which Florida law defines as "[t]he killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification . . . and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder."

           In the case of Darrin Terranova versus the State of Florida, Mr. Terranova was charged with committing the crimes of manslaughter and aggravated battery after beating another individual who ultimately died from his injuries.  Because Robert Champion also died after being beaten, it may be the case that those responsible for his death will be charged with the same offenses that Terranova was charged with and convicted of.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

           Florida law defines the crime of second-degree murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual."

          Manslaughter, on the other hand, is defined as "the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification . . . and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder."

          In the case of James Poole versus the State of Florida, Mr. Poole was charged with the first-degree murder of Darryl Newsome, one of Poole's drinking buddies.  The facts of this case are as follows:

          "Newsome had no fixed address, and his acquaintances referred to him as a 'floater.' Newsome was a large man; he was six feet tall, weighed 273 pounds, and was very strong. Newsome also had a reputation for violence, especially after he had consumed alcohol or drugs

          Newsome, Poole, and several other men were regular visitors at the recreational vehicle where Jerry Headley lived in Tampa. Newsome frequently bullied Headley. Headley had cancer, and he was debilitated as a result of his illness.

          On the afternoon of October 17, 2007, Newsome, G.M., and one or two other men had gathered at Headley's recreational vehicle. The recreational vehicle was quite small, and the men congregated outside drinking beer and whiskey. Before the incident that led to his death, Newsome had also been smoking crack cocaine.

          Poole arrived at Headley's recreational vehicle when it was beginning to get dark. The drinking continued. G.M. complained to Poole that Newsome had taken Headley's electric fan. G.M. was lying on the ground because of the effects of his intoxication. Newsome began to kick G.M. in the back and told him that he was going to beat him. Poole cautioned Newsome to leave G.M. alone because G.M. 'was too drunk to even mess with.'  Next, Newsome went inside Headley's recreational vehicle. Taking advantage of Newsome's retreat, G.M. wisely followed Poole's advice to leave.

          Later in the evening, all of the men had left the area except Headley and Poole. The two men were inside Headley's recreational vehicle watching a football game on television. Newsome suddenly returned a few minutes after he had departed and sat down inside the recreational vehicle. The incident that led to Newsome's death quickly followed. Thus the only witnesses to the killing of Newsome were Headley and Poole. For some unexplained reason, Headley did not testify at trial. For this reason, Poole provided the only evidence concerning what led to Newsome's death.

          According to Poole, when Newsome returned to the recreational vehicle, he was visibly angry. Newsome sat in a chair with his fists balled up, his eyes as 'big as half dollars,' and moving his lips but not saying anything. Poole had armed himself with a steak knife from Headley's kitchen because he was afraid Newsome was going to hurt either him or Headley. Newsome was a larger man than Poole. Poole was afraid of Newsome; he believed that he would not be able to defeat Newsome in a fight.

          Suddenly, Newsome got up and lunged at Poole in the cramped confines of the recreational vehicle.  (Poole later told detectives that he believed Newsome was getting ready to attack either him or Headley.)  Poole removed the steak knife from his pocket and stabbed Newsome once. Poole testified that when Newsome got up and lunged at him he was in fear that Newsome was going to harm him because Newsome was still angry about the earlier incident when Poole had told Newsome to break off his attack on the obviously-intoxicated G.M. Poole said that he was motivated by fear for his own safety, not hatred of Newsome or a wish to kill him. However, there was no evidence that Newsome was armed.

          Poole's single strike with the knife punctured Newsome's heart and the left side of his diaphragm.  Newsome survived long enough to stagger out of the recreational vehicle to a pay phone at a nearby convenience store. Newsome used the phone and apparently called 911. After he had used the pay phone, Newsome collapsed in the convenience store parking lot. Two Hillsborough County Sheriff's deputies who were conducting an unrelated surveillance operation saw Newsome and came to his aid. Newsome soon died as a result of internal hemorrhaging resulting from the stab wound.

          Meanwhile, Poole and Headley remained in the recreational vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. The sheriff's deputies who responded to the scene described both men as having the odor of alcoholic beverages about their persons. Later, a toxicology screen performed on Newsome by the medical examiner showed an alcohol level of .06 percent in his blood and was also positive for the presence of cocaine."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          Earlier this week, Palm Beach Post writer Susan Spencer-Wendel wrote an article entitled "She's guilty of murder, but shooter's free" in which she recounted how a young woman named Ashley Ramirez was convicted of robbery and first-degree murder with a firearm even though the jury who decided her case found that she did fire the gun that killed the victim nor did she even possess it.  Following the verdict, Ms. Ramirez repeatedly asked the judge how she could be convicted of murder even though she wasn't the one who shot the victim.

           Ms. Ramirez' question is one that is frequently asked in varying forms by people who are accused of committing crimes along with others.  For example, a person who is accused of trafficking in cocaine may wonder why he was charged even though it was his co-defendant who actually delivered the cocaine to the undercover police officer.  Or, to use another example, someone who is charged with theft may wonder why she was charged even though it was her co-defendant who actually stole the merchandise.

          The answer is that the people in these examples are being charged as principals.  According to this legal tenet, if someone helps another person commit a crime (or even attempt to commit a crime), the former individual is a principal and must be treated as if he did all the things the other person did if two conditions are met:

          1.  He had a conscious intent that a crime be committed; and

          2.  He "did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist or advise the other person" to actually commit or attempt to commit a crime.

           In addition, someone who is charged as a principal does not even have to be physically present when the crime is committed.

          It is because of the principal theory that Ashley Ramirez can be convicted of murder and robbery even though the jury found that she was not the one who actually killed and robbed the victim and even though the person who did actually kill and rob the victim has never been formally charged with doing so.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          In the courts of Florida, heat of passion is recognized as a defense to the crimes of first and second-degree murder.

          Heat of passion is a mental state provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror that, combined with adequate provocation, is a defense to the crimes of first and second degree murder. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might naturally cause a reasonable person in the passion of the moment to lose self-control and act on impulse and without reflection.

          An example of someone who relied upon the heat of passion defense occurred in the case of Villella v. State of Florida.  In that case, Mr. Villella, who was charged with the first-degree murder of his wife, argued that the stabbing of his wife was not premeditated but was instead a crime of passion committed after he learned that his wife was having an affair and intended to leave him and take their child with her.

          The jury heard Villella's two tape-recorded interviews with the police in which he told them that he suspected his wife was having an affair because she was making and receiving unusual telephone calls.  He also told the police that she was staying out late drinking and was, on one of those occasions, driven home by another man.  In addition, Villella found an intimate letter written by his wife to the man who had driven her home.  When Villella confronted his wife with his suspicions, she admitted that she was indeed having an affair with that same man.

          Tthe trial judge did not, however, let the jury hear any evidence about the fact that the man whom Ms. Villella was having an affair with had previously admitted that he had had such an affair and that he had driven her home on one occasion.  The judge refused to let the jury hear that evidence because he believed it was irrelevant. 

          Villella was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder and appealed his conviction to Florida's Fifth Distict Court of Appeal.

          Fortunately for Mr. Villella, the appellate court disagreed with the trial judge and granted Villella a new trial since it believed that such evidence would have corroborated Villella's statements to the police that his wife was having an affair and that it would also have shown that his belief that his wife was having an affair had merit to it and was not simply a lie made up in an attempt to get away with murder.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link