Webb v. State, 92-690

Decision Date04 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. 92-690,92-690
Parties17 Fla. L. Week. D2714 Douglas WEBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, and Steven G. Mason, Law Offices of Steven G. Mason, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

This case involves the propriety of an instruction on flight in a criminal aggravated battery case.

The victim, who is visually impaired and suffers from seizures, had known the defendant and the defendant's girlfriend for about a year prior to an evening when the defendant and the defendant's girlfriend visited the victim in the victim's home. During the visit a dispute occurred between the victim, the defendant and the defendant's girlfriend. The facts are in dispute but the truth of the disputed facts is not essential to a decision on a decisive point in this case. The victim alleges that the defendant, in effect, committed an aggravated battery with a deadly weapon upon him and that he, the victim, bit the defendant's thumb in self defense while the defendant alleges that the victim assaulted the girlfriend and bit the defendant's thumb and that the defendant's actions in beating the victim and scalding the victim with hot water were acts of self defense. Finally, when the victim indicated he was going to call "the law," and went to a neighbor's house, the defendant and the defendant's girlfriend left the area of the victim's home. The victim knew where the defendant lived.

Over the defendant's objection, the trial court instructed the jury on flight to the following effect:

When a suspected person in any manner endeavors to escape by flight, concealment, or other indication of a desire to avoid prosecution, that can be taken into account as evidence as one of a series of circumstances [from] which guilt can be inferred.

The defendant argues that in Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292 (Fla.1992), the supreme court ruled "that henceforth the jury instruction on flight shall not be given." 594 So.2d at 295. The supreme court indicated, however, that a flight instruction, even if erroneous, could be harmless when other evidence indicated the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fenelon was decided one month after the trial in this case. The State argues that Fenelon is to be applied prospectively only and therefore does not apply in this case. We note the recent case of Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992), which also considered the effect of retroactive application of supreme court decisions and that the Third District Court of Appeal has given Fenelon retrospective application but has also found harmless error. Wright v. State, 603 So.2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Bryant v. State, 602 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Sanchez-Basulto v. State, 601 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

We hold that the retrospective application of Fenelon is unnecessary to a decision here because under the facts in this case an instruction on flight was inappropriate even prior to Fenelon. See Wright v. State, 586 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1991).

Every time that a defendant leaves the area of an alleged crime does not mean the facts support an instruction on flight because of a natural inference indicating the consciousness of guilt. Flight implies a consciousness of guilt usually only when it reduces the chances of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Luster
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 15, 2006
    ...id. (flight instruction unwarranted because evidence suggested defendant did not leave scene to evade capture); see also Webb v. State, 609 So.2d 728, 729 (Fla.App.1992) (flight instruction inappropriate because evidence suggested defendant did not leave scene to avoid apprehension); State ......
  • T.B. v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 1996
    ...See generally Clark; Edwards v. State, 530 So.2d 936, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), approved, 548 So.2d 656 (Fla.1989); Webb v. State, 609 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Gissendanner v. State, 570 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, in this case, the evidence may be relevant for several purp......
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 26, 1994
    ...evidence from two police officers and the attending doctor, concerning the details and extent of the victim's injuries); Webb v. State, 609 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Gissendanner v. State, 570 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA While the state concedes that only aggravated battery by intentionall......
  • Paulk v. State, 92-1085
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1993
    ...on the following day, as scheduled, he went home to Miami. There were no facts indicating an attempt to elude capture. Webb v. State, 609 So.2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Shively v. State, 474 So.2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). As stated in Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 188-189 (Fla.1991), "De......

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