Muro v. State, 82-1030
| Decision Date | 31 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1030,82-1030 |
| Citation | 445 So.2d 374 |
| Parties | Joseph MURO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Jack B. Ludin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.
The appellant was convicted of escape from lawful custody. He contends on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of "necessity". The defendant was transported from the Monroe County jail to a hospital for treatment of injuries. The defendant was examined by a doctor and then taken for a series of X-rays. After the X-rays were taken, the defendant requested and was given permission to use the restroom. The defendant had been wearing a hospital gown and was carrying his clothing, and when he emerged from the restroom he was wearing his shirt and trousers and fled from the hospital. The defendant was apprehended approximately three hours later as he emerged from a lake onto the grounds of a golf course adjacent to the hospital. One of the officers who apprehended the defendant testified that he had not resisted when placed under arrest and that he appeared to be "hyper" and "extremely tense".
The defendant testified that he had been arrested after having been in Key West for approximately two days. He testified that he had been assaulted by other prisoners in the cell block where he was incarcerated:
He further testified that the other prisoners had threatened him as he was taken out of the cellblock:
"... And the last thing they said was, 'As soon as you get back, we're going to kill you and you won't be gone too long,' and they pulled me out of there and they took me to the hospital...."
He also testified that he had told jail personnel that he had been beaten, although he had been in "a haze", and did not recall to whom he had spoken. He stated that he had described his injuries to the doctor who had examined him at the hospital, and had undergone the X-rays. He described his subsequent actions:
The defendant testified to his state of mind at the time of his flight from the hospital as follows:
"A. I was thinking that--I was thinking, "Oh, God, if I have to die, let it be some other way, but not with a broomstick up my butt.
* * *
* * *
A. I was--I was not afraid of anything that might happen to me at the hospital. I was more afraid of--of--of coming--of being subjected to that same type of treatment that I'd received earlier, which was more like I felt like I almost died. Feeling of being beaten by 15 people just for no reason whatsoever, I knew I was heading back to that...
* * *
* * *
a. I was afraid of dying in that type of situation."
On cross-examination, the defendant was questioned regarding his intentions at the time of his flight:
"Q. And you also said that you didn't know where you were going, you just knew you were going, right?
A. I just wasn't coming back here to the treatment I received and to--I thought I was going to die. I thought that then I got back, these people were going to kill me. So, I chose another way out.
Q. You weren't planning on going to turn yourself in to another agency and report it; were you?
A. At that particular time, without lying to you, I didn't know exactly what I was going to do. I didn't know exactly where I was going to go. I didn't know exactly who I was. I didn't know very much. But, I did know I was running for my life; that, I did know."
The administrator of the Monroe County jail testified that he maintains records of jail beatings, which average approximately four each month, but that he had no record of the defendant having been beaten. He stated that the cellblock in which the defendant had been incarcerated was comprised of individual cells, but that the doors of the cells are not locked during daylight hours and that there are periods of time when no guards are present; he further testified that this particular cellblock has a reputation for violent occurrences.
The administrator further testified that the defendant had been transported to the hospital for injuries to his back and hands, but that it had been his impression at the time that the injuries had been suffered at the time of the defendant's arrest. He stated that he had subsequently learned that the defendant had reported the beating to the doctor at the hospital, and there should have been a report made of the incident.
The defendant submitted a written request for the following jury instruction:
"If you, the jury, find, or have reasonable doubt, that under all the circumstances shown in the evidence presented by both the Defendant and the State that the Defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that there was real, imminent, and impending danger to him of death or serious bodily harm if he did not leave the place from which he was confined and that he left because of such danger, rather than with the intent to elude lawful authority you should find him not guilty of the crime of escape."
The trial court ruled that the defendant's testimony did not establish the elements of a "necessity" defense and refused to give the requested instruction. We reverse. Section 944.40, Florida Statutes (1981), proscribes an escape or attempted escape from a jail or correctional facility. The courts have construed it as requiring proof of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—report Number
...is charged, the court must first determine whether the defendant has satisfied the conditions precedent enumerated in Muro v. State, 445 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and Alcantaro v. State, 407 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and if so, give 4b. b. The defendant left [the place of [his][her......
-
State v. Knox, 89-630
...law, had no criminal intent to escape from lawful confinement, Ramadanovic v. State, 480 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Muro v. State, 445 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and, accordingly, the motion to dismiss was properly granted below. Fowler v. State, 492 So.2d 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), r......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Crimianl Cases-Report No. 2011-03
...is charged, the court must first determine whether the defendant has satisfied the conditions precedent enumerated in Muro v. State, 445 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and State v. Alcantaro, 407 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and if so, give 4b. b. The defendant left [the place of [his] [he......
-
Ambrister v. State
...DCA 1984), Solomon v. State, 436 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Holley v. State, 423 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Muro v. State, 445 So.2d 374, (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984). In this case there is record evidence which supports appellant's theory of defense. Both arresting officers testified that ......