Cobb v. State
| Citation | 376 So.2d 230 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 53832,53832 |
| Parties | William D. COBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender and Stuart M. Lerner, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This case is before us on transfer of an appeal commenced in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. 1 The court directly and initially passed on the validity of section 782.11, Florida Statutes (1975), which makes it a second-degree felony to
unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed . . . .
Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution, we have jurisdiction to review the trial court's order which upheld the validity of the statute.
On June 19, 1976, William Cobb, a police officer, responded to a report that two apparent trespassers were entering a field in Parkland, Florida. The field was known to contain hallucinogenic mushrooms, and the police department had been asked to guard against trespassers entering the property. Accompanied by a former Parkland resident, Cobb drove to the northern edge of the property, ordered his companion to remain with the car, and entered the field. Trees and foliage blocked the former resident's view of subsequent events.
Cobb's testimony and statements introduced at trial indicate that he came upon Donald Eldridge and attempted to arrest him for trespassing. After handcuffing Eldridge's left wrist, but before his right hand could be secured, Cobb was accosted by the second trespasser, Roger Daugherty. Still holding on to Eldridge, Cobb fell to the ground, noticed Daugherty again approaching him, and pulled his revolver. When Daugherty did not respond to an order to stop and a warning shot, Cobb fired toward him. Daugherty fell mortally wounded. Eldridge and Cobb began to scuffle and, during the course of the struggle, Eldridge received one fatal gunshot wounds to the head.
Cobb was indicted on two counts of unnecessary killing to prevent an unlawful act, and, after his motion to dismiss the indictment was denied, was tried and found guilty of the unnecessary killing of Eldridge. 2 In this appeal, he raises several points for our consideration.
Cobb first asserts that section 782.11 is unconstitutionally vague, in that the phrase "unnecessarily kill" lacks the explicit meaning necessary to apprise men of common understanding of the conduct to which it applies. We upheld a statute containing a similar phrase in Campbell v. State, 240 So.2d 298 (Fla.1970), where the defendant was charged with "unnecessarily or excessively" chastising a child. We there said:
The particular words complained of, "unnecessarily or excessively" are not vague when considered in the context of the entire Statute and with a view to effectuating the purpose of the act. The fact that specific acts of chastisement are not enumerated, an impossible task at best, does not render the statutory standard void for vagueness. Criminal laws are not "vague" simply because the conduct prohibited is described in general language. 3
When the words "unnecessarily kill" in section 782.11 are considered together with the remainder of chapter 782, they are sufficiently precise to meet the constitutional standard for definiteness in penal statutes. Homicides committed while resisting another's unlawful act are punishable only if not excusable, as provided in section 782.03, Florida Statutes (1975), or if not justifiable, as provided in section 782.02 or chapter 776, Florida Statutes (1975). Read with these provisions, section 782.11 is not impermissibly vague.
Cobb further contends that the uncontradicted evidence adduced at trial establishes that Eldridge's killing was justified, pursuant to sections 776.05 and 776.07. These sections provide that any force is justifiable when a law enforcement officer "reasonably believes (it) necessary" to defend himself or prevent an escape. We disagree with Cobb. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination that the killing was unjustified. The major features of this evidence were Cobb's testimony concerning what transpired, testimony by the pathologist who performed an autopsy on Eldridge that the bullet entered the rear of Eldridge's head, followed a 35o downward path, and exited from the right frontal bone, and physical and testimonial evidence that holes in Eldridge's hat correlate to the deceased's head wounds ( that the hat was still on Eldridge's head when he was shot). The jury could find from the evidence that Eldridge did not pose a threat sufficient to support Cobb's asserted belief that deadly force was necessary.
Cobb next asserts that the trial court erred in giving jury instructions both on general manslaughter and on culpable negligence, 4 inasmuch as an "unnecessary killing" described in section 782.11 is a crime separate and distinct from general manslaughter. In view of the facts adduced at trial, we hold that the manslaughter and culpable negligence instructions were proper for the crime charged in this case. 5 The elements of general manslaughter, in conjunction with the additional factor of resistance against another's attempt to commit an unlawful act, can constitute "unnecessary killing" manslaughter. 6
Cobb raises as further error comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument which, Cobb contends, were so prejudicial as to deny him a fair trial. While Cobb's counsel moved for a mistrial in response to these comments, a mistrial motion is appropriate only when the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial. 7 Our review of the record here indicates that the prosecutorial comments made in this case do not constitute such grave error.
Having considered all points claimed as error by Cobb, including those not discussed, we affirm Cobb's conviction and sentence.
It is so ordered.
I agree that section 782.11 is constitutional; however, I believe that the uncontradicted evidence in this case establishes that the killing was justified. The trial court should have granted Cobb's motion for judgment of acquittal.
If Cobb had known in advance that the two trespassers were going to resist arrest with violence, he probably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballard v. Mcneil
...for review of prosecutorial misconduct is whether “the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” Cobb v. State, 376 So.2d 230, 232 (Fla.1979); see also Jones, supra; State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984). Upon review of the prosecutor's comments in context of a......
-
Fana v. Sec'y
...for review of prosecutorial misconduct is whether “the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.” Cobb v. State, 376 So.2d 230, 232 (Fla.1979); Jones v. State, 612 So.2d 1370 (Fla.1993); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984). The comments also must be examined b......
-
Williams v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...for review of prosecutorial misconduct is whether "the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial." Cobb v. State, 376 So.2d 230, 232 (Fla. 1979); See Jones v. State, 612 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1993); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1984). The comments by thePage 23pro......
-
Fana v. Sec'y, DOC, Case No. 3:11-cv-311-J-39JRK
...review of prosecutorial misconduct is whether "the error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial." Cobb v. State, 376 So.2d 230, 232 (Fla. 1979); Jones v. State, 612 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1993); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1984). The comments also must be examined by......