FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0578

_____________________________

TED’QWON MCGOWAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

James M. Colaw, Judge.

September 11, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and grand 

theft of an automobile and sentenced to life imprisonment. Here 

he raises a claim of error in giving an Allen∗ charge over his 

defense counsel’s objection, and three claims of error concerning 

the evidence admitted or not admitted at trial. Finding no error 

under the applicable standards of review, we affirm. See Blanding 

v. State, 298 So. 3d 712, 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (applying an 

abuse of discretion standard to a trial court’s decision to give an 

Allen charge); Mitchum v. State, 345 So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2022) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review generally 

∗ Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). 
2

to the decision whether to admit evidence but applying a de novo 

standard when a “ruling depends on interpreting the evidence code 

and applicable cases”). 

The Allen charge was given after the jury had deliberated for 

approximately seven hours and informed the court that they were 

deadlocked. Although it was late at night when the Allen charge 

was given, there were no “coercive deadlines” or “threats of 

marathon deliberations.” Blanding, 298 So. 3d at 714 (citing 

Gahley v. State, 567 So. 2d 456, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)). 

Furthermore, there was no request from the jury to recess for the 

evening. 

Turning to the evidentiary issues, first it was not error to 

admit a text message, sent before the shooting, from the victim to 

a third party noting that Appellant had a firearm. The text 

message was offered into evidence not for the truth of the matter 

asserted but to show the victim’s state of mind to explain the 

victim’s actions before the shooting. See § 90.803(3)(a)2., Fla. Stat. 

(2022). And even if erroneous, the admission of the text message 

was harmless since Appellant testified, consistent with the text 

message, that he was armed with a firearm before the shooting. 

See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1138–39 (Fla. 1986) (holding 

the admission of hearsay can be harmless if there is no reasonable 

probability that the hearsay contributed to the defendant’s 

convictions). 

Second, the trial court was correct to refuse to admit 

irrelevant evidence that before trial Appellant was transferred 

from the Bradford County jail to Baker County jail for his own 

safety. Section 90.401, Florida Statutes, defines relevant evidence 

as “evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” Section 

90.402, Florida Statutes, states that “[a]ll relevant evidence is 

admissible, except as provided by law.” Appellant testified that he 

stole a car and fled from the scene for the shooting because he was 

scared. The fact that he was subsequently transferred to a 

different jail after the shooting had no bearing on this defense. 

Third, Appellant claims error in the trial court’s admission of 

body camera footage from law enforcement officers who responded 

to the scene immediately after the shooting. This is again a 

relevancy determination. See Douglas v. State, 878 So. 2d 1246, 
3

1255 (Fla. 2004). “Crime scene photographs are relevant when 

they tend to show ‘the manner in which the murder was 

committed, show the position and location of the victim when he or 

she is found by police, or assist crime scene technicians in 

explaining the condition of the crime scene when police arrived.’” 

O’Neal v. State, 372 So. 3d 733, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (quoting 

Douglas, 878 So. 2d at 1255). The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in determining that the evidence of the condition of the 

crime scene shortly after the shooting was more probative than 

prejudicial, despite the fact that the body camera also showed the 

victim’s family’s grief in the immediate aftermath of the murder. 

See § 90.403, Fla. Stat.

We find no error, therefore the conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED. 

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.