Home » Murder

Articles Posted in Murder

Posted In: | By

It is not uncommon for verbal disagreements to become physical, which can ultimately result in criminal charges. In Florida, a person charged with assault or other violent defenses may be able to avoid a conviction if they can demonstrate they were acting in self-defense. If a court unjustly declines to instruct the jury on self-defense, and the defendant is convicted of a violent crime, they may have grounds for arguing the conviction should be vacated, as discussed in a recent Florida case. If you are accused of a violent offense, there may be defenses you can assert, and you should talk to a Tampa violent crime defense attorney promptly.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant was charged with second-degree murder for the shooting death of the victim. The incident occurred after a prior dispute between the victim, the defendant’s girlfriend, and a neighbor. On the day of the shooting, the victim was attempting to contact his father, who had borrowed his truck, when the victim, his girlfriend, and their children drove to locate him. They encountered a vehicle driven by the neighbor, with the defendant as a passenger. The victim approached the defendant’s vehicle, and the defendant, claiming self-defense, shot the victim multiple times.

Allegedly, the defendant believed the victim was armed and acting aggressively, though no weapon was found on the victim. At trial, the defense sought to include a jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force, specifically requesting that aggravated assault be listed as a felony justifying such force. The trial court denied this request, instead allowing the inclusion of burglary. The defendant was subsequently convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to fifty years in prison, followed by lifetime probation. The defendant appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding the aggravated assault instruction. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In many criminal matters,  the prosecution lacks direct evidence that the defendant committed the crime in question. While prosecutors can use circumstantial evidence to demonstrate a defendant’s guilt, they must abide by any applicable rules of evidence. Recently, a Florida court examined when witness opinion testimony can be introduced in a criminal trial, in a case in which the defendant was convicted of murder and other charges. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is wise to meet with a Tampa violent crime defense attorney to assess your possible defenses.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant faced numerous charges, including second-degree murder with a firearm, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and aggravated assault with a firearm. The charges stemmed from a dispute between the defendant’s family and the victim’s family, culminating in a confrontation at a local park. Earlier animosity arose from the defendant’s sister’s past relationship with the victim. A Snapchat conversation between the defendant and the victim led to an agreement for a fistfight to settle their differences. On the night of the incident, the defendant drove to the park armed with an AR-15 rifle. A heated argument ensued, and the defendant fired multiple shots from his vehicle, resulting in the death of the victim and injuries to others present.

Allegedly, the evidence presented during the trial included testimonies from witnesses, forensic analysis, and the defendant’s own account. The court noted that the defendant claimed self-defense, asserting that he shot at the victim to prevent an imminent threat. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts, with some supporting the defendant’s version and others disputing it. The defendant was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the trial court erred by allowing a witness to opine on the reasonableness of the defendant’s use of deadly force. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In criminal cases, whether a defendant is found guilty typically hinges on the jury’s perception of them and the facts presented at trial. Thus, it is critical that the jury is comprised of impartial people who represent the defendant’s peers. If the prosecution uses a preemptory strike against a juror for impermissible reasons, therefore, it may violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. Recently, a Florida court discussed preemptory strikes of jurors in criminal matters in a case in which the defendant was convicted of murder and other crimes. If you are accused of murder or another violent offense, it is critical that you engage the services of a Tampa criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant and accomplices robbed a pawn shop and then fled from the police. The defendant ultimately entered the victim’s home and then drove the victim’s car through the garage door. The police arrested the defendant and then found the two victims murdered within the home.

The defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of first-degree murder. During the selection of jurors, the state used one of its preemptory strikes to remove a juror who, like the defendant, was black. The defendant’s attorney stated that the state’s reason for striking the juror was not sufficiently race-neutral. The defendant was convicted as charged. He then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

First-degree murder is one of the most serious crimes the State can charge a person with, and a conviction has the potential to result in a death sentence. Generally, the State must prove that certain aggravating factors were present during the commission of a homicide crime for a person to be sentenced to death. The State’s burden in seeking the death penalty was the topic of a recent Florida opinion, in a case in which the defendant appealed his death sentences after following first-degree murder convictions. If you are charged with a violent crime, it is critical to speak to a seasoned Tampa criminal defense attorney to assess your potential defenses.

The Trial and Sentencing

It is reported that the defendant and the victim, his ex-girlfriend, were estranged, and the defendant was subject to a restraining order that prohibited him from contacting the victim. He suspected that she was dating another man, and he ransacked her home while she was out. She called the police but declined to press charges. The following day, he attended a hearing on another criminal matter, then called the victim and spoke to her for several minutes.

Allegedly, the defendant then proceeded to buy ammunition, travel to the victim’s home and shot the victim and one of her friends who was in the home with her. He attempted to shoot her boyfriend and another friend as well. He was charged with and convicted of multiple first-degree murder crimes and sentenced to death for each murder. He appealed, arguing in part that the trial court erred in instructing the jury and finding the murder was committed in a calculated, cold, and premediated manner which constituted an aggravating factor and lead to his death sentences.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Florida-Court-Fourth-Amendment-Protections-300x169

When the police conduct a criminal investigation, they will typically obtain a warrant to uncover information that is private or otherwise not readily accessible. If the police gather certain evidence without a warrant, however, it may violate the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures, and the evidence may be deemed inadmissible. Not all information is protected against warrantless searches, though, as demonstrated in a recent Florida opinion issued in a homicide case, in which the court ruled that information from a third-party GPS system was not private. If you are charged with murder or a related offense, it is essential to retain an assertive Tampa criminal defense attorney who will fight to protect your rights.

The Alleged Crime and Investigation

Allegedly, the victim was found murdered in a park. He had been staying at a hotel prior to his death. The defendant resided at the hotel also, along with his girlfriend. The hotel had cameras, and when the police reviewed the surveillance footage, they observed the victim leaving the hotel with the defendant and the defendant returning alone a few hours later. The police learned that the defendant often used his girlfriend’s car, which was equipped with a GPS tracker.

Apparently, while the defendant generally had permission to use the car, the girlfriend did not know he took it on the night of the murder and reported it stolen. As such, she contacted her financing company, which had installed a GPS tracker, to track the car’s location. The police obtained GPS information from the company without a warrant. The information revealed that the defendant drove to the park where the victim was found on the night of the murder.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Requirements-for-Imposing-the-Death-Penalty-1-300x169

The most severe punishment a criminal defendant may face in Florida is the death penalty. Recent changes in Florida law, though, make it more difficult for a criminal defendant to be sentenced to death. In a recent Florida case in which the defendant was charged with murder, the court discussed the status of the current and past requirements for sentencing a defendant to the death penalty. If you are charged with murder or another violent offense, it is in your best interest to engage an aggressive Tampa violent crime defense attorney to develop a strategy for fighting to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant broke into a home in 1984, assaulted a teenage girl that was babysitting in the home, and stabbed her to death. Five days later, he murdered another victim in a substantially similar matter. He was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for each crime. Due to recent changes in the law, the defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentences on the grounds they were unlawful. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant then filed an appeal. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Death Penalty Sentences Under Florida Law

With regard to the sentence for the second crime, the court found that it was lawful under the sentencing scheme in effect at the time, and case law held that the intervening change in the law was not to be applied retroactively. As such, that sentence was affirmed. Regarding the second sentence, which due to appeals, was imposed much later, the court noted that the Supreme Court of Florida found the prior sentencing scheme to be unconstitutional because it allowed the judge issuing a sentence to find that an aggravating circumstance existed, which is necessary for the imposition of a death sentence, without a jury’s determination of fact.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), if a person convicted of a crime is deemed a career criminal, he or she may face increased penalties. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Johnson v. United States, that the residual clause in the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague. As such, offenders previously sentenced to increased prison terms under the residual clause of the ACCA may be eligible for a reduced sentence. Each case must be evaluated on an individual basis, however, to determine whether the Johnson ruling will affect an enhanced sentence.

Recently, in a case appealed from the Southern District of Florida, a federal appellate court ruled that attempted murder is a violent felony and therefore grounds for increased penalties under the ACCA. If you are a resident of Tampa who has prior convictions and are currently facing criminal charges, you should meet with a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney to discuss your available options and defenses.

Defendant’s Prior and Current Convictions

Reportedly, the defendant was convicted in Florida for first-degree attempted murder. He was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition. He was tried and convicted of the charges. The defendant’s presentence investigation report showed he was subject to an enhanced sentence under the ACCA for attempted first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated battery. He was sentenced to 204 months in prison. Following the Johnson ruling, he filed a motion to reduce his enhanced sentence, arguing his prior convictions could no longer be considered violent felonies. His motion was dismissed. The defendant then appealed on the issue of whether his conviction for attempted first-degree murder constituted a violent felony. On appeal, the court affirmed his enhanced sentence.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

In the United States, criminal defendants do have the right to defend themselves. However, a United State Supreme Court case called Faretta clarified that a defendant’s waiver of counsel is only valid as long as it is knowingly and intelligently made. Essentially, a defendant needs to be competent enough to understand the ramifications of their actions. While defendants do have the right to represent themselves, it is generally a bad idea. That’s why defendants should always contact a skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney as soon as they are arrested.

General Competency

Whether a defendant is represented by counsel or representing themselves, they need to be competent in order to stand trial. This is different than an insanity defense. Competency refers to the defendant’s mental state at trial. They need to be competent enough to understand the nature of the proceedings against them and meaningfully assist in their own defense.

In a case heard by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, the defendant represented himself at trial after dismissing two different attorneys. Before the trial began, the defendant was determined to be incompetent to stand trial. However, after a period of hospitalization without medication, he was deemed competent enough to stand trial. At several points throughout the trial the court did a Faretta inquiry and each time the defendant was found competent to stand trial and represent himself.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

As representatives of the State, prosecutors have special responsibilities that the defense does not have. Prosecutors are supposed to be on the side of justice, so they should look at the evidence with that goal in mind. If they find evidence that would tend to show that the defendant is innocent, they have a responsibility to share that evidence. Specifically, a Supreme Court case called Brady requires that the prosecution must turn over any evidence to the defense that meets certain criteria. If they do not do this, a conviction may be reversed. There are a number of different ways that a skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney may be able to get your conviction overturned. Of course, individual results will depend on the facts of your case.Brady Violations

There are certain requirements that need to be met in order for a court to find that a Brady violation has occurred. The burden is on the defendant to show that a Brady violation has taken place. The first thing the defense needs to prove is that the evidence either impeached the testimony of a prosecution witness or was exculpatory. They also need to prove that the State either willfully or inadvertently withheld that evidence from the defense. Finally, the defendant needs to show that the evidence was material and that their lack of access to the evidence hurt their case.

The Florida Supreme Court has clarified some other aspects that are necessary for a Brady violation. One of the important aspects that they have clarified is that the defense must not have known about the existence of the evidence at the time of the trial. The reasoning behind this is that if the defense knew about the evidence, it wasn’t withheld.

Continue Reading ›

Posted In: | By

The rule against hearsay essentially bans a person from testifying in court about what another person said outside of court if the testimony is meant to prove that the out-of-court statement is true. As Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently pointed out in a murder case, however, there are a number of exceptions to this rule. That includes certain statements made by a person shortly before he or she dies.Defendant was charged with first degree murder and an assortment of related criminal offenses, stemming from the killing of a Florida man during what prosecutors described as a drug deal gone wrong. Defendant was visiting Miami from New York when he and a friend bought $5 worth of marijuana from M., according to the court. M. then arranged for Defendant to buy $1,500 in cocaine and marijuana from V., the court said. Defendant allegedly coaxed M. to his hotel room, where he and his associate claimed to be police officers, threatened M. with a gun, beat him, and forced M. to set up a meeting with V..

V. eventually met with Defendant and got in the back of his car. Defendant’s associate showed V. a police ID card. V. tried to get out of the car when he realized Defendant didn’t have money for the drugs he said he wanted to buy. A struggle ensued, during which Defendant allegedly shot V. three times as V. was getting out of the car. Defendant and his associate drove off with M. still in the back of the car. A police officer who arrived on the scene asked V. who shot him. V. told the officer that it was “a black man with dreads.” He died shortly after making the statement.

Continue Reading ›