Opinion ID: 1103334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: motion for judgment of acquittalpremeditation & felony murder

Text: Next, Fitzpatrick claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal with regard to premeditation and felony murder. As stated above, courts should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the opposite party can be sustained under the law. Morrison, 818 So.2d at 451 (quoting Lynch, 293 So.2d at 45). Furthermore, we have stated: A judgment of conviction comes to this Court with a presumption of correctness and a defendant's claim of insufficiency of the evidence cannot prevail where there is substantial and competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment. Id. (quoting Donaldson v. State, 722 So.2d 177, 182 (Fla.1998)). The fact that the evidence is contradictory does not warrant a judgment of acquittal because the weight of the evidence and the witnesses' credibility are questions solely for the jury. See id. It is not this Court's function to retry a case or reweigh conflicting evidence submitted to the trier of fact. See id. In the present case, the State sought a first-degree murder conviction on alternative theories of premeditated murder and felony murder with the underlying offense of sexual battery. Thus, because a general verdict form was used in this case, to affirm Fitzpatrick's first-degree murder conviction, there must be competent, substantial evidence supporting either premeditated or felony murder (predicated on sexual battery). See id. at 452; see also Jones v. State, 748 So.2d 1012, 1024 (Fla. 1999) (citing Mungin v. State, 689 So.2d 1026, 1029-30 (Fla. 1995)). First, Fitzpatrick asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant a judgment of acquittal on the question of felony murder because the State did not present sufficient evidence to support a conviction for felony murder with sexual battery as the underlying felony offense. Fitzpatrick contends that he had a consensual sexual encounter with the victim between 9 a.m. and noon on August 17fifteen to eighteen hours before she was found. However, record evidence contradicts the timing of events outlined by Fitzpatrick. Evidence presented at trial indicated that the amount of seminal fluid containing Fitzpatrick's DNA found in the victim confirmed that sexual intercourse took place only one to two hours before she was found. See Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380, 391 (Fla.1983) (determining that the fact that the defendant's sperm and semen traces were discovered in the victim's vagina indicating sexual relations at approximately the time of death supported the finding of sexual battery). The evidence established that Fitzpatrick's sexual encounter with the victim occurred between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. on August 18. Further, Fitzpatrick's contention that sexual intercourse with the victim was consensual was contravened by the circumstances under which the victim was found. Specifically, the victim was found naked with her bloody undergarment wrapped around her waist near her breasts, her breasts were deep purple, and there was a penetrating wound in the breast area that was either another stab wound or a bite mark, puffiness around her head, bruising on her arms, scratches covering her legs, and a cigarette burn on her leg. See Carpenter v. State, 785 So.2d 1182, 1196 (Fla.2001) (determining that the evidence that demonstrated that the victim's own bra was placed across her mouth as a gag was inconsistent with consensual behavior); Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 18 (Fla. 2000) (determining that although there is evidence from which a jury could conclude that [the victim] originally intended to engage in consensual intercourse with [the defendant], such evidence does not negate a finding to the contrary). The State presented competent, substantial evidence from which the jury could find that there was sufficient evidence that the killing occurred during a sexual battery, and therefore the trial court did not err in denying Fitzpatrick's motion for judgment of acquittal. Next, Fitzpatrick asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant a judgment of acquittal on the question of premeditated murder. Assuming without deciding whether the trial court erred, [5] we find that any error would be harmless because the evidence clearly supported a first-degree murder conviction on a felony murder theory. See Jenkins v. State, 692 So.2d 893, 894 (Fla.1997); Mungin v. State, 689 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1995).