Case Name: Julie Catherine DUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-07-19
Citations: 454 So. 2d 641
Docket Number: No. 82-566
Parties: Julie Catherine DUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SHARP, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 454
Pages: 641–651

Head Matter:
Julie Catherine DUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 82-566.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 19, 1984.
Rehearings Denied Aug. 22, 1984.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Cynthia Karl-Stamm, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Shawn L. Briese, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
COBB, Chief Judge.
The defendant, Julie Dunn, was convicted after jury trial of the second-degree murder of her boyfriend, Steven Flanagan. At trial the state proved, without dispute, that Dunn shot and killed Flanagan with a rifle in the home they shared. The state also introduced evidence from various witnesses that Dunn previously had threatened to kill Flanagan because of his philandering. This established the corpus de-licti.
One witness, Edith Cope, testified that some six weeks after the shooting, Dunn, after extracting a promise of secrecy, confessed to her that she had "shot Steve on purpose" while he was sitting on the couch after she went into the bedroom and got the rifle. She admitted that he had not raped or beaten her as she had previously told the police. Dunn told Cope that she was upset and angry with Steve because the night before the shooting he again had been out with another woman. This testimony was admitted into evidence at trial without objection and its admissibility is not challenged on appeal.
This confession of guilt constituted direct, not circumstantial, evidence. Lee v. State, 362 So.2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 185 (2d ed. 1972). Even in the absence of the confession, we would still affirm on authority of our recent opinion in Newberry v. State, 442 So.2d 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We reject, however, the views expressed by the special concurring opinion in regard to circumstantial evidence. Concurring opinions do not represent preceden-tial authority.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, J., concurs.
COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.