Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in a phone call with his friend Lemons, West-brooks mentioned a “lick,” or a robbery, in Carver City. Also, Westbrooks admitted being with or in control of his car all night, and the State presented evidence that Westbrooks’ car was involved in the incident. There was no other explanation for Westbrooks’ car being in Carver City that night. Cf. Rocker, 122 So.3d at 904 (concluding that Rocker’s actions on the night of the murder were “just as consistent with the theory that he was participating in a drug transaction as [they were] with the theory that he was participating in a robbery”). The State presented evidence of intent and participation that was inconsistent with Westbrooks’ theory that he was not involved in the incident. Cf. Pack v. State, 381 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (<HOLDING>). Because the State presented circumstantial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a robbery defendant was not entitled to a compulsion instruction in the absence of a claim that he or the victim was the target of a specific threat forcing the defendant to participate in the robbery (B) holding that circumstantial evidence that defendant drove the car and fled the scene after his brother committed robbery was insufficient to sustain defendants conviction absent other evidence of defendants intent to aid in the robbery (C) holding defendants participation in violent robbery and his fear of codefendants among other facts provided sufficient evidence that murder should have been anticipated as result of robbery (D) holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate (E) holding that evidence showing the defendant after shooting the victim ran from the scene got into a car nearby and drove away was sufficient evidence of flight
Output (English): holding that evidence showing the defendant after shooting the victim ran from the scene got into a car nearby and drove away was sufficient evidence of flight