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

          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