Rodriguez v. State, 4D11–1534.
| Decision Date | 26 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D11–1534.,4D11–1534. |
| Citation | 174 So.3d 502 |
| Parties | Adriana RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Adriana RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D11–1534.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug. 26, 2015.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 2015.
Richard B. Barkin and Ondina Felipe of the Law Office of Richard B. Barkin, Boca Raton, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Opinion
STEVENSON, J.
Adriana Rodriguez appeals her convictions for first-degree murder and kidnapping. Because the trial court erred by not giving the Defendant's requested jury instructions on the defenses of independent act and duress, we reverse the first-degree murder conviction.
Background
Maciel Videla was murdered as part of a plot by several drug dealers to make him “permanently deaf and blind” for snitching. His body was found in a canal on
December 12, 2008. His throat had been slashed and he had been stabbed multiple times by Diego Nunez (“Yogi”).
The Defendant was the victim's girlfriend. On the night of the murder, she persuaded him to come to a bar and then called Yogi to let him know that the victim had arrived. Yogi and three others drove to the bar in two separate cars. The first car pulled into the parking lot while the second car stayed out of sight.
As per “the plan,” the Defendant escorted the victim out of the bar to the parking lot to meet the first car. The victim knew both men in the car and voluntarily got into the back seat. Alfredo Gomez, the passenger, climbed into the back seat with him and draped an arm across his shoulder as they drove out of the parking lot.
The cars drove west to Highway 441 and stopped at the edge of a canal in a remote location. Gomez took the victim out of the car, pinned his arms behind his back, and held him down on his knees. Yogi emerged from the second car, strode up from behind, slit the victim's throat and then stabbed him multiple times in the back.1
The Defendant confessed in a taped statement which was played for the jury that her role was to bring the victim out of the bar and walk him to the waiting car. It is unclear from her statement what she knew about Yogi's plan. She said she called Yogi from the parking lot after the cars drove off because she thought “they probably were beating [the victim] up in the car before they went off” and she wanted to find out what was happening since “they [stayed] there for a long time. And I'm over here wondering, what are you guys doing. They left. They went over there to 441 but they didn't tell me what they did or nothing. ”
After the victim was killed, Yogi gave the Defendant details of the murder, and she went with the group to dispose of bloody clothes and the knife. During her confession, she told the officer multiple times that she was scared and that she participated only because Yogi had threatened her life and the lives of her family members.
Procedural History
The Defendant and three others were indicted for first-degree murder and kidnapping. A fifth co-conspirator became a witness for the State and was not charged. Yogi and another co-conspirator were indicted, but absconded to Mexico. The Defendant and Alfredo Gomez were tried as codefendants with separate juries.
The State proceeded against the Defendant on the kidnapping count and both theories of first-degree murder—premeditated murder and felony murder. Before trial, counsel for the Defendant submitted a Request for Special Jury Instructions, asking the trial court to instruct the jury on the defenses of independent act and duress. During the charge conference, counsel conceded that duress is not a defense to premeditated murder, but argued that the duress instruction should be given as a defense to felony murder. He argued that the Defendant was entitled to the independent act instruction as a defense to all charges, including first-degree murder. The trial court refused to give either instruction as a defense to first-degree murder, but agreed to give both instructions as defenses to second-degree murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and false imprisonment.
Standard of Review
The trial court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. “ ‘[T]he trial judge's discretion is fairly narrow because a criminal defendant is entitled, by law, to have the jury instructed on his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support his theory and the theory is recognized under Florida law.’ ” Gomez v. State, 155 So.3d 1184, 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Palmore v. State, 838 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ).
The standard of review as to the propriety of a special jury instruction is de novo. Rockmore v. State, 140 So.3d 979, 984 (Fla.2014) (citing Butler v. State, 493 So.2d 451, 453 (Fla.1986) ).
Independent Act Instruction as a Defense to First–Degree Murder
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give the independent act instruction as a defense to first-degree murder. Appellant notes that the trial court gave the instruction as a defense to the kidnapping, false imprisonment, second-degree murder, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial