Owens v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--326,73--326 |
| Parties | William OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack P. Brandon, Woolfolk, Myers, Curtis, Craig & Gibson, Lake Wales, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
JOHNSON, W. CLAYTON, Associate Judge.
Appellant, William Owens, has appealed a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court of Polk County.
A review of the record discloses that John Dicks arrived alone at the Oyster Bar midway between Winter Haven and Dundee at about 6:00 P.M. He consumed several beers and about 9:00 P.M. entered the unoccupied restroom of said premises. At this point Appellant, Danny Sasnett and Lavon Sasnett, who had been shooting pool together in the Oyster Bar, also enter the restroom as Dicks is preparing to depart the restroom. Whereupon, the uncontradicted testimony of Dicks revealed that Lavon tied Dick's shoelace string ear plugs in a knot and then requested of Appellant his knife which Lavon used to cut Dick's ear plugs loose. Seconds thereafter, still in the restroom, Lavon said 'grab him' whereupon appellant grabbed Dicks from behind and held him while Lavon repeatedly struck Dicks in the face with his fist until Dicks fell to the floor where he was further struck, but was unable to state whether any feet were used to strike him as 'I was trying to cover my face up'. While on the restroom floor Dicks related 'they said 'get his wallet" which they removed from his pocket but returned with their comment No other persons were present in the restroom during the incident, however, state witnesses identified Appellant and the two Sasnetts leaving said restroom just prior to the discovery of Dicks lying on the restroom floor. Appellant, Danny and Lavon Sasnett departed the bar shortly after the beating of Dicks but later returned.
Dick's injuries were described as He was taken by ambulance to the hospital and released following emergency room treatment. The jury had the opportunity to examine five evidentiary photos taken of Dicks the following day. Betty Ellis, barmaid, of the Oyster Bar described Dicks' injuries:
The State also introduced evidence that approximately fifteen to twenty minutes following the beating of Dicks, Appellant, Appellant's brother and Lavon Sasnett returned to the Oyster Bar and forced their way in against the protestations of the bar owner. All three made threats against the bar owner and Appellant said he was going to kill him. The bar owner testified, 'They were coming at me' but were stopped by the Sheriff's Department.
The thrust of Appellant's appeal is directed to three points: (1) that the evidence was insufficient as Lavon Sasnett was the protagonist of the Dicks beating; (2) the court erred in admitting evidence of the later threats upon the bar owner; and (3) the injuries inflicted upon Dicks were not sufficient to satisfy the essential statutory (Fla.Stat. 784.045, F.S.A.) elements of: great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement.
Turning to points one and two of this appeal, it is obvious that upon the evidence presented (nothing was shown to indicate Appellant struck Dicks) Appellant's guilt of the crime charged would necessarily depend upon a showing of aiding and abetting under Section 776.011 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which requires proof of his intent to participate. Lockett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 253.
Abundant proof that the Appellant was present aiding and abetting Lavon Sasnett in the beating of Dicks was adduced at the trial and the jury was properly instructed under F.S. Sec. 776.011, F.S.A. As to the incidental evidence admitted at the trial showing Appellant's subsequent return to the Oyster Bar and threats against the bar owner, it would be improper, as Appellant contends, were its sole purpose be to show bad character or propensity of the Appellant to commit the crime charged, Williams v. State, Fla., 110 So.2d 654. However, in Christie v. State, Fla.App., 246 So.2d 605, we said,
'This 2nd...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Velazquez v. Sec'y
...wounds to the victim's back, standing alone, constitutes "great bodily harm" sufficient to satisfy § 775.087. See Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) ("Great bodily harm defines itself and means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm[.]"). Th......
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Asad
...that the crime be committed and assisted in its commission); Norris v. State, 360 So.2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Owens v. State, 289 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (upholding Owens' conviction as a principal to the beating of the victim even though there was no evidence to indicate that h......
-
Lee v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery . . . .'") (quoting Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)). On direct appeal the state appellate court expressed doubt concerning whether the evidence proved that Lee used a dea......
-
Miami-Dade County v. Asad, No. 3D07-363 (Fla. App. 3/11/2009)
...that the crime be committed and assisted in its commission); Norris v. State, 360 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472, 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (upholding Owens' conviction as a principal to the beating of the victim even though there was no evidence to indicate that......