Martin v. State, 75--530

• Decision Date: 18 November 1975
• Docket Number: No. 75--530,75--530
• Citation: 323 So.2d 666
• Parties: William Alfonso MARTIN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 666

323 So.2d 666

William Alfonso MARTIN, Jr., Appellant, v.The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75--530.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 18, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1976.

Carr & Emory, James Baccus, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellant was charged with 'leaving (the) scene of (an) accident involving personal injury' in violation of Fla.Atat. § 316.027.After a trial before the court without jury, he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to serve a period of one year in the county stockade.This appeal is from that judgment and sentence.

Two points are presented but they are argued together in that in each case the appellant urges an insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.The gist of appellant's argument is that inasmuch as there is evidence in the record which would support a conclusion that the defendant sustained a concussion before he left the scene of the accident that the State's case was, therefore, not proved beyond a reasonable doubt because it is possible that the defendant did not know what he was doing and, accordingly, lacked the element of willfulness required in the felony defined by Fla.Stat. § 316.027(2).SeeState ex rel. Miller v. Patterson, Fla.App.1973, 284 So.2d 9.We hold that the evidence is sufficient because the defense of lack of mental capacity is an affirmative defense.In this case, the best that can be said for the defense is that it raised an issue of fact to be decided upon the conflicting evidence by the trial court.

The State's case was proved when it was established that the defendant, as the driver of the automobile, drove into the side of another car where the damage was extensive and person therein was injured and that, thereafter, without making any investigation, he drove away.Intent, being a state of mind, is usually not susceptible to proof but must be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a particular case.Skold v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 627.Until the contrary is proved, an individual is presumed to intend the ordinary results of his acts.SeeAmerican Fire and Casualty Company v. Sunny South Aircraft Service, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 276;and seePell v. State, 1929, 97 Fla. 650, 122 So. 110.The defendant attempted to meet the State's case by presenting a claim of head injury which...