Martin v. State
Decision Date | 18 November 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 5D15–284.,5D15–284. |
Citation | 207 So.3d 310 |
Parties | Dante MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rupak R. Shah and Frances E. Martinez, of Escobar & Assoc., P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Samuel A. Perrone and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney Generals, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Dante Martin (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentences, which were entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the crimes of manslaughter,1 felony hazing resulting in death,2 and two counts of misdemeanor hazing.3 We affirm.
The defendant was a member of the percussion section of the Florida A & M University's marching band, the "Marching 100." Members of the percussion section are entitled to ride to away events in a motor coach known as "Bus C." The defendant was president of Bus C.
A tradition or ritual known as "Crossing Bus C" has existed at the University for some time. The ritual consists of three components: 1) the hot seat, 2) the prepping, and 3) the crossing. During the hot seat, the participant takes a seat on Bus C (near the front) and is struck or hit repeatedly by others, including members of the percussion section. Next, the participant is prepped. During the prepping, the participant stands up and places his or her hands on the luggage rail and is then slapped a number of times with full force by the others on the bus. After the prepping, the participant crosses from the front of the bus to the back while others slap, kick, and punch the participant. The defendant, as bus president, decided when someone could cross Bus C.
On the day at issue, Keon Hollis, Robert Champion, and the defendant, as members of the Marching 100, performed at the Florida Classic in Orlando, Florida. Immediately following the band's performance, the defendant asked Hollis if he planned to cross the bus. Hollis indicated that he wanted to do so. Later, Jonathan Boyce, also a member of the band, received a text from the defendant asking him to convey to Hollis and Champion that if they wanted to cross "it's available" to them.
That night, Lissette Sanchez (another member of the percussion section), Hollis, and Champion crossed Bus C, and the defendant participated in these crossings. Champion was the last to cross. When Champion made it to the back, he appeared tired, but indicated, "I'm good." After the crossings were completed, everyone left the bus except Champion. When Boyce noticed that Champion was not with him, he returned to the bus. He found Champion in the back of the bus panicking; and, shortly thereafter, Champion passed out. Champion was taken to a hospital, but efforts to save his life were not successful.
Champion's body was transferred from the hospital to the medical examiner's office. Dr. Sarah Irrgang, the associate medical examiner, visually examined Champion's body. She observed some discoloration and a few superficial abrasions
, she took several photographs, and then released Champion's body for bone harvesting. The next day, after his leg bones had been harvested, Champion's body was returned to the medical examiner's office. At that time, Dr. Irrgang noticed unevenness in the skin on Champion's torso, suggesting swelling. This observation prompted Dr. Irrgang to investigate further. She took a number of pictures of Champion's body during the ensuing autopsy. Based on her investigation, she determined that the manner of death was homicide.
The defendant was later arrested and charged with manslaughter, felony hazing resulting in death, and two counts of misdemeanor hazing. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in guilty verdicts on all counts. The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the verdicts and sentenced the defendant to a term of seventy-seven months' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
The defendant first argues that his three hazing convictions must be reversed because Florida's hazing statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. We disagree.
State v. Kahles, 644 So.2d 512, 512–13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (quoting Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494–95, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) ), approved, 657 So.2d 897 (Fla.1995) (footnotes omitted).
Florida's hazing statute defines the term hazing, provides examples of hazing, and provides a list of activities or conduct excepted from the definition of hazing:
§ 1006.63(1), (5), Fla. Stat. (2012).
As for the defendant's overbreadth claims, a "statute is deemed to be overbroad if it seeks to control or prevent activities properly subject to regulation by means which sweep too broadly into an area of constitutionally protected freedom." J.L.S. v. State, 947 So.2d 641, 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing Firestone v. News—Press Publ'g Co., Inc., 538 So.2d 457, 459 (Fla.1989) ). In J.L.S., the Third District set forth the following principles concerning the overbreadth doctrine:
947 So.2d at 644–45. Of consequence, "the overbreadth doctrine applies only if the legislation is susceptible of application to conduct protected by the First Amendment." Simmons v. State, 944 So.2d 317, 323 (Fla.2006) (quoting Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Res., 453 So.2d 1351, 1353 (Fla.1984) ).
The defendant asserts that Florida's hazing statute encroaches upon constitutionally-protected speech or conduct and, thus, the statute is overbroad; however, he does not articulate how the statute is susceptible of application to speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment. See id.; State v. Bryant, 953 So.2d 585, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Rather, he simply argues that, by criminalizing hazing without respect to the victim's consent, subsection 1006.63(5) regulates and restricts "a wide variety of activity...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. State
...body during the ensuing autopsy. Based on her investigation, she determined that the manner of death was homicide. Martin v. State , 207 So.3d 310, 313-14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).III.In evaluating Martin's overbreadth and vagueness challenges, the Fifth District began by acknowledging the analy......
-
McGovern v. Clark
... ... deemed and held to be the child of the husband and wife, as though born within wedlock ... Petitioner correctly notes that the statute does not state that the "reputed father" must be the child's biological father. However, it appears to the court that that is a natural conclusion. If not, there ... State v. Hagan, 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 1980) ; Martin v. State, 207 So. 3d 310, 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), approved, 259 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 2018)."Marriage triggers legal rights, responsibilities, and ... ...
-
Dep't of Children & Families v. Manners
... ... State , 320 So. 3d 695, 714 (Fla. 2021) (citing Dessaure v. State , 891 So. 2d 455, 466 (Fla. 2004) ). However, a court's discretion "is limited by rules f evidence and the applicable law." Martin v. State , 207 So. 3d 310, 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Horwitz v. State , 189 So. 3d 800, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ). Because this issue involves ... ...
-
South Carolina v. State, 3D16-2066.
... ... any ... stolen ... driver license or identification card." 322.212(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015). "Stolen" is not defined in chapter 322, which means we give the term its plain and ordinary meaning, resorting to dictionaries where necessary and helpful. See Martin v. State, 207 So.3d 310, 31718 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("Similarly, with respect to the term competition, although the statute does not define this term or provide examples of competition, we may resort to dictionaries to determine the meaning of an undefined statutory term."); State v. Gaulden, 134 ... ...
-
Evidence
...by the medical examiner in explaining to the jury the nature and manner in which the wounds were inflicted on his body. Martin v. State, 207 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) State did not violate defendant’s due process rights when it failed to retrieve and preserve a surveillance tape that c......