Laythe v. State, 74-1304
| Decision Date | 06 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1304,74-1304 |
| Citation | 330 So.2d 113 |
| Parties | Ruth Mary LAYTHE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Gerald D. Hubbart and Julian Mack, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The defendant, Ruth Mary Laythe, was charged by indictment with first degree murder. She was tried by jury, found guilty of second degree murder, and convicted and sentenced to 25 years in the state penitentiary.
The evidence showed that defendant Laythe and a friend, Rick Carter, conspired to steal money from one Eladio Ramon 'Lalo' Diaz, a black Cuban drug dealer whom Laythe knew to have a lot of money. Carter stated 'we'll have to kill him,' and Laythe said 'no, forget it.' The next day, Laythe brought Lalo to her apartment. Carter was there. Laythe stated that she looked at Carter and shook her head, meaning no. Some thirty minutes later, she followed Carter into the bathroom and stated, 'Rick I want you to leave, I'm not going to do it, I don't ever want to see you again.' Rick started to leave. Laythe went into the kitchen to fix a drink and then she heard a shot. Over a period of two or three minutes, Carter shot Lalo three more times until he was dead.
At the charge conference, defense counsel requested that the jury be instructed as to withdrawal from the conspiracy based on the defense that Laythe timely terminated her involvement well before Carter committed the offense. The court denied the instruction proposed by defense counsel, but acknowledged that, 'somewhere in the deal, a person could withdraw,' and suggested a different instruction on withdrawal. The state objected to any charge on withdrawal, the court reserved ruling and then decided not to instruct on withdrawal.
On appeal, defendant Laythe contends that the trial court erred in failing to include the defendant's requested instruction or the court's own alternative instruction on withdrawal. We agree. 'However disdainfully the trial Judge may have felt about the merits of such defense from a factual standpoint, however even we may feel about it, is beside the point.' Koontz v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 224, 227. A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. State
...347 (Fla.1982). Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798 (1945); Williams v. State, 356 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Laythe v. State, 330 So.2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1976). The federal rule is the same. See, e.g., United States v. Bennett, 665 F.2d 16 (2d C......
-
Palmes v. State
...Stinson v. State, 245 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Whitehead v. State, 245 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), and withdrawal, Laythe v. State, 330 So.2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1976). All these defenses concern either the defendants' innocence or their legal excuse ......
-
Hudson v. State
...the trial judge has a duty to provide standards for the jury to follow. Barnes v. State, 93 So.2d 863 (Fla.1957) and Laythe v. State, 330 So.2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). But see: Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372, 112 So. 73 It is not the function of the trial judge to weigh the evidence and sele......
-
Smith v. State
...of defense if there is any evidence to support such instructions. Motley v. State, 155 Fla. 545, 20 So.2d 798 (1945); Laythe v. State, 330 So.2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1976); Stiglitz v. State, 270 So.2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Canada v. State, 139 So.2d 753 (......