Reyes v. State, 3D98-2959.
Citation | 783 So.2d 1129 |
Decision Date | 28 March 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 3D98-2959.,3D98-2959. |
Parties | Cesar Alexander REYES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Suzanne M. Froix, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Frank J. Ingrassia, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and FLETCHER, JJ.
This case involves an all-too-common, all-too-tragic feature of modern American urban life. On August 19, 1995, a young woman named Evangelina Ramirez and her three-year-old nephew, Bernabe Ramirez, were visiting a park in Miami when they were caught in a hail of bullets fired at each other by members of rival youth gangs in a fight over a girl. Bernabe was killed and Evangelina seriously wounded. This appeal challenges various convictions arising from the incident imposed upon Carlos Reyes after a jury trial. The more difficult legal problems presented arise from the fact that Reyes did not fire the shots which struck the victims.1 Rather, the state contended—and the jury found— that Reyes started the deadly melee by firing an automatic at two opposing gang members, including Daniel Espinosa, who, in returning fire with a shotgun, actually hit them.
There is little, if any, controversy about the operative facts, which are fairly stated in the appropriate light most favorable to its side in the state's brief:
After trial, the jury convicted Reyes of manslaughter of Bernabe Ramirez with a firearm as a lesser included offense of second degree murder (count I), aggravated battery of Evangelina Ramirez with a firearm as charged in count II, aggravated assault of Hugo Paniagua with a firearm as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder (count III) and attempted voluntary manslaughter of Daniel Espinosa with a firearm as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder (count IV).
For the reasons which follow, we uphold the validity of the charges against Reyes as they relate to Bernabe and Evangelina Ramirez, but, because of various trial errors, prominently including the admission of prejudicial evidence against him, order a new trial on all offenses.
March, 458 So.2d at 309. The point was elaborated and its application to the broader societal issue presented by cases like this one was explained in a remarkable opinion of Maryland's highest court. In Alston v. State, 339 Md. 306, 662 A.2d 247 (1995), citing March, the court said:
The relevant frame of reference, however, is Alston's participation in the gun battle. Both the Alston group and the New York group were armed and prepared to do battle whenever and wherever their forces encountered one another. When their forces did meet at Pressman and Division Sts., they opened fire, returned fire, and continued to fire in mindless disregard of the lives of the people on the street and in the surrounding houses. Each participant, prior to the actual combat, was willing to use lethal force when the opposing groups met. Each participant manifested depraved heart malice toward noncombatants when the two groups met and sought to kill each other as they previously had determined to do. There would have been no mutual combat, and no murder of an innocent person, but for the willingness of both groups to turn an urban setting into a battleground. In this sense each participant is present, aiding and abetting each other participant, whether friend or foe, in the depraved conduct.
Alston, 339 Md.App. at 316-17, 662 A.2d at 251. A like decision is People v. Daniels, 172 Mich.App. 374, 431 N.W.2d 846 (1988), in which the following ruling of the trial judge sitting non-jury was affirmed:
Daniels, 172 Mich.App. at 377-78,431 N.W.2d at 848. Accord, e.g., People v. Aurelio, 167 Cal.App.3d 52, 212 Cal.Rptr. 868 (1985)(irrelevant whether defendant convicted of second degree murder actually fired weapon which killed companion because he was active accomplice in commission of provocative act of driving vehicle used to invade rival gang's territory in search of rival gang member); People v. Russell, 91 N.Y.2d 280, 693 N.E.2d 193, 670 N.Y.S.2d 166 (1998)(defendant criminally responsible for death although fatal bullet did not come from his gun when he aided and encouraged others by agreeing to engage in gun ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Melvin v. Sec'y
...v. State, 932 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also Laflipe v. State, 888 So. 2d 104, 105-06 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Reyes v. State, 783 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).The evidence presented at trial established that the Defendant's gang af......
-
State v. Young
...of a continuum of events’ in which both [racers] participated." Id. (citation omitted).5 See, e.g. , Reyes v. State , 783 So.2d 1129, 1132–33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) ; March v. State , 458 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (per curiam); Spates , 779 N.W.2d at 779–80 (discussing w......
-
Dean v. State
...traffic accident after the defendant stole a stop sign from the intersection where the accident occurred); see also Reyes v. State, 783 So.2d 1129, 1132–33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that a defendant could properly be convicted of manslaughter for the death of a victim he did not actually ......
-
State v. Spates
...aiding and abetting each other participant, whether friend or foe, in the depraved conduct. Id. at 252; accord Reyes v. State, 783 So.2d 1129, 1132-33 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001) (holding "each participant in a mutually agreed-to-gun battle in a public place may be held accountable for any death......