Adams v. State

• Decision Date: 26 March 1975
• Docket Number: Nos. 72--597,72--598 and 72--644,s. 72--597
• Citation: 310 So.2d 782
• Parties: Warren M. ADAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Betty M. YARBOROUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 782

310 So.2d 782

Warren M. ADAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Betty M. YARBOROUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72--597, 72--598 and 72--644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 1975.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and William F. Casler, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant Adams.

Enrique Escarraz III, St. Petersburg, for appellant Yarborough.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

On rehearing, and after additional oral argument, we revisit these two cases which we now consolidate.

Appellants were jointly convicted of felony murder and robbery arising out of the same episode, the victim being the same person in each charge. Factually, the robbery herein was a purse snatching from a 75 year old woman who as a result thereof fell and fractured her hip. Four days later she was operated upon to reduce the fracture and during that operation suddenly suffered a cardiac arrest from which she died.

The threshold question in this appeal is whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a finding of causation, i.e., that the homicide was committed in the perpetration of the robbery.

Admittedly, the immediate cause of the victim's death was a cardiac arrest during surgery. However, three doctors testified that surgery was medically necessary for the treatment of the victim's injuries, and that absent surgery, she would die. The two doctors which were asked said that the cardiac arrest was caused by the surgery. There was no suggestion that the surgery was improperly performed.

Hence, there is an unbroken chain. Appellant Yarborough snatched the victim's purse causing her to fall. The fall caused the broken hip. The broken hip required treatment by surgery. The surgery brought about the cardiac arrest. The cardiac arrest was the immediate cause of death.

The Florida case closest in point is Grimley v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1959, 114 So.2d 630, in which the court reversed a manslaughter conviction for insufficient evidence and ordered a new trial. However, on the question of proximate cause the court said:

'The remaining point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of decedent's death. It cannot be denied but the tragedy in question consisted of a series of most unfortunate events, and the life of decedent would have been spared had any one of the events failed to occur. The rear end collision caused by defendant's momentary lapse or inattention was no different in most respects from numerous similar incidents which occur almost daily throughout our state. Most such collisions result in little more than bent fenders, a crushed radiator and an occasional whiplash injury to the occupant of the innocent vehicle. In this case, however, the collision caused decedent's automobile to catch on fire which resulted in serious burns to the upper extremities of decedent's body. Decedent's satisfactory recovery was interrupted by an unexplained cardiac arrest which in turn induced an onset of septicemia. It was this latter condition which proximately caused death. Although it cannot seriously be contended that the foregoing series of events could have been reasonably foreseen as the natural and probable consequences of a rear end automobile collision, we nevertheless are forced to the conclusion that it was the negligent act of defendant which ultimately resulted in decedent's death.'

The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for murder in Berry v. State, 1934, 114 Fla. 73, 153 So. 507, where the immediate cause of death was tetanus which resulted from germs entering the wound inflicted by the defendant. In Johnson v. State, 1912, 64 Fla. 321, 59 So. 894, that court held that where the wound is in itself dangerous to the life, the mere erroneous treatment of the wound or of the wounded man suffering from it would not afford the defendant protection against the charge of unlawful homicide. If a defendant is responsible for death resulting from the negligent medical treatment of a wound inflicted by him, he should be all the more responsible where, as in the instant case, the medical treatment was not negligent.

In an annotation at 100 A.L.R.2d 769 entitled 'Homicide: liability where death immediately results from treatment or mistreatment of injury inflicted by defendant,' the annotator states at page 774:

'. . . With respect to a wound which is not necessarily fatal, in jurisdictions wherein there is no controlling statute the person who inflicted such an injury is likewise generally criminally responsible for the death of the injured person even though it immediately resulted from medical or surgical treatment and regardless of whether such treatment was proper or negligent, also on the ground that the original wrongful act was the proximate cause of death, the subsequent treatment with its attendant risks being foreseeable and a consequence of the original wrongful act, . . .'

In People v. Paulson, 1967, 80 Ill.App.2d 44, 225 N.E.2d 424, death was caused by an infection which developed during an operation to relieve a hematoma. The hemetoma had been caused by a blow to the head inflicted by the defendant. In affirming a murder conviction, the court held that the chain of events which ultimately caused the death was set in motion by the act of the defendant and that the resulting infection was not disconnected from the defendant's act.

In Quillen v. State, 1955, 10 Terry 114, 49 Del. 114, 110 A.2d 445, the court upheld a murder conviction where it was shown that the victim died of an embolism which was probably caused by an operation necessiated by a shotgun wound inflicted by the defendant.

The victim suffered wounds on her chin and cheek in an automobile accident in State v. Cox, 1960, 82 Idaho 150, 351 P.2d 472. During the course of suturing the wounds, an anesthesia was given. Immediately after the second dosage, the victim died. The pathologist said that it was possible that the victim would have died from the original wounds, but that the findings were inadequate to explain her death. He agreed that the anesthesia was a contributing factor to her death. The court held that the defendant could be convicted of negligent homicide for having caused the accident.

In Commonwealth v. Eisenhower, 1897, 181 Pa. 470, 37 A. 521, during the course of the operation the victim died because a drainage tube inserted by a surgeon found its way into his spinal canal. The operation was required because the victim had suffered a gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant. There was no suggestion that the doctor was negligent. The court affirmed the conviction of murder.

In upholding a manslaughter conviction in Odeneal v. State, 1913, 128 Tenn. 60, 157 S.W. 419, the Tennessee court said:

'. . . One who unlawfully inflicts a dangerous wound upon another is held for the consequences flowing from such injury, whether the sequence be direct or through the operation of intermediate agencies dependent upon and arising out of the original cause. One of these dependent occurrences is the necessity of surgical aid, which may eventuate as the immediate cause or death. . . .'

In the instant case the evidence supported the finding that the victim's fall was the proximate cause of her death.

Appellants' reliance upon Tipton v. State, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 277, is misplaced. In that case, there was no proof of the cause of death. However, the opinion in that case dealt primarily with responsibility rather than causation. The court held that even if causation were to be admitted, the acts of the defendant fell short of the 'degree of the act' necessary to constitute manslaughter. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the degree of the act because by statute the commission of the felony establishes the responsibility for the death which ensues. The fact that there was no evidence that the appellants intended to murder the victim is irrelevant because they are being charged with a murder which resulted during the commission of a felony. Under those circumstances, no proof of intent to kill is required. State v. Williams, Fla.App.2d, 1971, 254 So.2d 548.

Having determined that the evidence supports the finding of the court on the issue of causation, we consider now the fact that the court entered two judgments and imposed two sentences on each of appellants. First of all, we observe that this apparently came about because the state was worried about causation and therefore in an abundance of caution procured a two-count indictment against each appellant; one charging first degree murder and the other robbery, as noted. From that point on it's obvious from the record that both the court and counsel traveled on the assumption that each count charged a separate offense and that a conviction could be had on either or both. This is illustrated by a bargain, in the manner of a 'plea bargain,' which was struck between the parties with the acquiescence of the court, for a waiver of jury trial on the condition that the death penalty would not be imposed. (It is to be noted that the judgments herein were entered on June 21, 1972, 9 days before the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), voiding the then existing death penalty.) This bargain, which takes on added significance later as will be seen, was entered into on the day of trial and went as follows:

'MR. CASLER: If it please the Court, the defendant Adams would request that the State agree to non-jury trial in this matter. That's all I have to say at this time.

THE COURT: What says defendant Yarborough?

MR. ESCARRAZ: We join, we join.

THE COURT: What says the State?

MR. MENSH (Assistant State's Attorney): That's agreeable.

THE COURT...