Olsen v. State, 97-02709.
| Decision Date | 05 January 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-02709.,97-02709. |
| Citation | 751 So.2d 108 |
| Parties | Christopher S. OLSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steven L. Seliger, of Garcia and Seliger, Quincy, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia E. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Christopher Olsen ("Olsen") appeals his conviction for burglary, first-degree murder, and other related offenses stemming from a three-day criminal episode. Olsen raises five issues on appeal. We find three issues worthy of discussion, all of which relate to the burglary and murder convictions. First, Olsen contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal for the burglary charge. Second, Olsen argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal on the murder charge. Third, Olsen avers that trial court erred in excluding reverse Williams1 rule evidence.
The State alleged that Olsen burglarized the home of Patricia Wilson and bludgeoned her to death with an axe handle. The State's case on the murder and burglary charges was wholly circumstantial. After reviewing the record, we reverse the burglary conviction, reduce the first-degree murder conviction to second-degree murder, and affirm the remaining convictions.
Patricia Wilson and her husband, Harvey, ran an outdoor amusement business. They routinely traveled to several state fairs and carnivals. From time to time, the Wilsons employed Olsen to assist them in the operation of the business. During the off-season, the Wilsons would occasionally employ Olsen and others to help repair the attractions at their home in Florida.
In early May 1996, Harvey Wilson traveled out of state at the start of the season to run the business. Patricia Wilson remained at the home awaiting the completion of repairs to one of the trucks used to haul the attractions. The Wilsons agreed, as they had in the past, to hire Olsen for the season. Olsen agreed to stay in Florida with Patricia Wilson and drive the truck when the repairs were complete. Olsen slept on the couch or in a spare bedroom in the Wilsons' home.
Pamela Hoffman, the Wilsons' daughter, attempted to reach her mother by telephone several times on Saturday, May 18, but no one answered. On Sunday, May 19, Hoffman visited the home on two separate occasions. On each visit, she discovered the back door had been left unlocked. Although she conducted a quick search of the home each time, she did not enter the master bedroom. She locked the back door after departing the second time on Sunday.
On Monday, May 20, Hoffman returned to her parents' home. She entered by using her key. She searched the home and entered the master bedroom. She found her mother's body on the bed, partially concealed by a pile of bedding.
Hoffman advised the police that Olsen had been staying in the home and that the Wilsons had given Olsen permission to use their pickup truck. The police found Olsen at a local shopping center that same afternoon. Olsen attempted to flee, and his conduct resulted in several of the charges below.
Olsen argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge. We agree. A burglary is defined as "entering or remaining in a structure or conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein." Britton v. State, 604 So.2d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The State's evidence showed that Olsen stayed in the Wilsons' home as an invitee. On the other hand, Olsen admitted stealing several items from the Wilsons' home. The pivotal issue is whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Wilson withdrew her consent for Olsen to remain within the house. See Marquez v. State, 721 So.2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
.
The State argues that Wilson implicitly withdrew her consent for Olsen to remain within the house as soon as she became aware that he was committing, or had committed, a crime. However, there must be some evidence, beyond the mere fact that a crime occurred, upon which the jury can reasonably infer that Patricia Wilson withdrew her consent. See id. at 1208.
When a defendant moves for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case, the only issue is whether the State has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. In viewing the State's evidence, all reasonable inferences of that evidence are drawn in favor of the State.
Leonard v. State, 731 So.2d 712, 717 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Williams v. State, 511 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)). The State failed to present prima facie evidence of burglary, and the trial court should have granted Olsen's motion for judgment of acquittal on that charge at the conclusion of the State's case.
The State argued for a first-degree murder conviction on theories of premeditation and/or felony murder. Because we find that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the burglary conviction, or evidence to support any other theory for felony murder, the first-degree murder conviction cannot stand on a theory of felony murder.
After the State rested its case, Olsen moved for a judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied the motion. We conclude the State presented prima facie evidence that Olsen killed Patricia Wilson, but did not present prima facie evidence of premeditation.
Olsen resided in the Wilsons' home. Olsen stole Patricia Wilson's check book and passed three forged checks on her account. Olsen stole several items of personal property from the Wilson home and pawned them. At least one of the items, a television set, came from the very room where Patricia Wilson was murdered. The police found the remote for this television set on the bed with the body. The police also found a VCR, which was normally kept in the bedroom, in the kitchen with Olsen's fingerprints on the underside. Again, police investigators found the remote to this unit in the bedroom, on the floor.
There were no signs of forced entry. Although Hoffman testified that someone left the door to the residence unlocked, there were burglar bars on the outside of the home. The police linked all the items stolen from the home to Olsen. No other items were discovered missing. Finally, Olsen took extreme measures in his attempts to flee from police custody. These facts, and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, establish a prima facie case for murder.
Although Olsen admitted to committing the thefts and forgeries, and admitted that he pawned several items for drug money, he denied killing Patricia Wilson. Olsen presented witnesses and took the stand in his own defense, in an attempt to establish an alibi defense.
We agree with the trial court that the State introduced competent evidence inconsistent with Olsen's alibi theory. The State elicited testimony demonstrating that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...2d DCA 2009) ; Sweet v. State, 987 So.2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Waiter v. State, 965 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ; Olsen v. State, 751 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ; Chavers v. State, 115 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Haynes v. State, 106 So.3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ; Paul v. State,......
-
COOPER v. State of Fla.
...permitting defendant to introduce similar fact evidence of Earl Burgess' 1993 crime. See Traina, 657 So.2d at 1229; Olsen v. State, 751 So.2d 108, 111-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Kimbrough v. State, 700 So.2d 634, 637 (Fla.1997); Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 540 (Fla.1990) (holding that the t......
-
Holder v. State, Case No. 2D18-5110
...2d 1236 (Fla. 2004) ; Kirkland v. State, 684 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1996) ; Mungin v. State, 689 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1995) ; Olsen v. State, 751 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ; State v. Broom, 523 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) ; Farrell v. State, 62 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ; Branch v. State, ......
-
Hahn v. State, 2D14–5516.
...313 (Fla.2001) ; Kirkland v. State, 684 So.2d 732 (Fla.1996) ; Shortridge v. State, 884 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; Olsen v. State, 751 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ; Chavers v. State, 115 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).ALTENBERND, SILBERMAN, and LaROSE, JJ., ...
-
Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Confusion, at Common Law and Under the Model Penal Code
...Coolen v. State, 696 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1997) (4-3 decision), Bell v. State, 768 So. 2d 22 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000), Olsen v. State, 751 So. 2d 108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000), and Castillo v. State, 705 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998). But see the following cases for examples of evid......