Smith v. State

Decision Date18 February 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74--571,74--571
Citation311 So.2d 775
PartiesEstrella Louise SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Steven Rappaport, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge.

GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of three counts of assault and battery. The court sentenced the defendant to one year imprisonment on the first count to be followed by two six month terms consecutively on the second and third counts. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and this appeal followed.

The charges from which this appeal results stem from an altercation between several people which began in the parking lot of the appellant's apartment complex and which subsequently migrated to the hall and doorway of appellant's apartment.

On September 7, 1973, Johnny Louis and his wife, Louita, went to visit his daughter who lived in the same apartment complex as the appellant. Evidence was introduced that both Johnny and his wife were intoxicated. In the parking lot, an altercation developed between the Louises and appellant's boyfriend, Tony Benoya. The argument appears to have been a series of racial slurs, centered around the relationship between Benoya, of Cuban descent, and appellant Smith, a Black American. The Louises went on to their daughter's apartment and Benoya to appellant's apartment. The Louises, their daughter and a visitor to the daughter's apartment appeared at the doorway of appellant's apartment, and the argument and insults continued. Louita Louis approached appellant's apartment, searching through her purse. Having knowledge of a previous incident whereby Louita shot her husband, appellant searched for an instrument of self defense and found a container of acid in the bathroom. Returning to the scene of the altercation, appellant found Louita and the daughter's visitor throwing bottles.

A disinterested witness corroborated appellant's testimony that she threw the container of acid after being hit on the arm by one of the hurled bottles. Appellant testified at trial that some of the acid had spilled on her and she was trying only to get rid of the container; however, she told the investigating officer at the scene she was trying to protect Benoya. As a result, appellant, the Louises, appellant's young son, and the daughter's guest were seriously burned by the acid.

Throughout the trial, appellant attempted to introduce evidence regarding the threatening conduct and statements made by the alleged victims to the defendant. Repeatedly the trial court sustained the prosecution's objections to such testimony as hearsay. On appeal, appellant urges that such evidence was admissible as part of the Res gestae, and exception to the hearsay rule. We agree.

Generally, the term Res gestae includes words, declarations, and acts so closely connected with a main fact in issue as to constitute a part of the transaction. Washington v. State, 118 So.2d 650 (Fla.App.2nd 1960). The Res gestate doctrine was further elaborated on by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21 (Fla.1967):

'It is often difficult to determine when declarations having relation to an act or transaction should be considered as part of the res gestae, and an equally great difficulty has been experienced in the effort to prescribe general rules for the admission of such. It may, however, be safely said that declarations which were natural emanations or outgrowths of the act or occurrence in litigation, although not precisely concurrent in point of time, if they were yet...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Wheelis v. State, Y--399
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1976
    ...Washington v. State, 118 So.2d 650, 653 (Fla.App.2d, 1960); Powell v. State, 208 So.2d 146 (Fla.App.4th 1968); Smith v. State, 311 So.2d 775 (Fla.App.3d, 1975), cert. den. 327 So.2d 35 (Fla.1976); 2 P. Herrick, Underhill Criminal Evidence § 266 (5th ed., 1976 cum. supp.). The same doctrine ......
  • Kline v. State, BH-90
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1987
    ...both sentences in Cigelski were for felony convictions, is an immaterial difference between that case and this one. Smith v. State, 311 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 35 (Fla.1976); cf., Mancebo v. State, 338 So.2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The supreme court decision in......
  • Kennedy v. State, 77-2029
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1980
    ...of the deceased qualify as res gestae utterances and are thus excepted from the hearsay rule. As defined in Smith v. State, 311 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975), The term res gestae includes words, declarations, and acts so closely connected with a main fact in issue as to constitute a par......
  • Mancebo v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 19, 1976
    ...misdemeanors which are authorized and in accordance with Section 775.082(4)(a) Florida Statutes (1975). If we said anything in Smith v. State, supra, which indicated that separate sentences for separate misdemeanor convictions could not be for a greater maximum period than one year in the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT