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 |
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.
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). See State 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. See American Fire and Casualty Company v. Sunny South Aircraft Service, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 276; and see Pell 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...Accordingly, we affirm appellant's conviction for leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injuries. See Martin v. State, 323 So.2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Appellant also challenges a condition of her probation which required her to pay restitution to her employer or her insuranc......
-
Heisterman v. State
...competency both at the time of the offenses and the time of trial. Neither of these points presents reversible error. See Martin v. State, Fla.App.1975, 323 So.2d 666. It should be noted that these points were not presented in the trial court. See State v. Barber, Fla.1974, 301 So.2d Appell......
-
Sherba v. State
...D.C.A.1957); Harper v. State, 141 So.2d 606 (Fla.2nd D.C.A.1962); Rumph v. State, 248 So.2d 526 (Fla.1st D.C.A.1971); Martin v. State, 323 So.2d 666 (Fla.3rd D.C.A.1975). ...
-
Dubois v. State
...SCHWARTZ, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So.2d 691 (1941); Martin v. State, 323 So.2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Brown v. State, 391 So.2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Williams v. State, 400 So.2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Bolen v. State, 3......