Opinion ID: 2686844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In his first claim on appeal, Smith claims that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgments of acquittal because the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder in the deaths of Gibson and Keenan. Specifically, Smith asserts that the evidence does not refute his claim that he acted in self-defense. As we explain below, Smith did not preserve this claim for review. In any event, under this Court’s independent review of the evidence, Smith’s argument lacks merit. Sufficient evidence supports Smith’s three first-degree murder convictions. “Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380(b) states that a motion for judgment of acquittal ‘must fully set forth the grounds on which it is based.’ ” Victorino v. State, 23 So. 3d 87, 103 (Fla. 2009). This Court has further held that when a defendant does not raise in the trial court the same grounds for granting the motion argued on appeal, the claim is not preserved for appeal. See id.; Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993). After the State rested its case, Smith -6- moved for a judgment of acquittal “as to each count in the Indictment, in that the State has not established a prima facie case of evidence. No further argument.” The trial court denied Smith’s motion. After the close of evidence, Smith’s counsel renewed the “motion for judgment of acquittal and all of [his] previously made motions.” The trial court denied the renewed motion for judgment of acquittal. Smith did not argue to the trial court, as he argues on appeal, that he killed Gibson and Keenan in self-defense. Therefore, Smith failed to preserve his self-defense claim for appeal. Even though Smith failed to preserve his claim that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, “this Court independently reviews the record to confirm that the jury’s verdict is supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Davis v. State, 2 So. 3d 952, 966-67 (Fla. 2008) (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.142(a)(6)). The jury found Smith guilty of the first-degree murder of victims Gibson and Keenan under two theories: felony murder and premeditated murder. Additionally, the jury found Smith guilty of the first-degree murder of victim Robinson under the felony murder theory. The evidence is sufficient to support all three convictions. Two standards of review apply to the determination of whether the evidence of guilt is sufficient. Where the evidence of guilt is direct, either in whole or in part, this Court reviews whether “a rational trier of fact, upon reviewing the -7- evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find that the elements of the crime have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Twilegar v. State, 42 So. 3d 177, 188 (Fla. 2010). However, where the evidence of guilt is wholly circumstantial, “not only must the evidence be sufficient to establish each element of the offense, but the evidence also must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence proposed by the defendant.” Id. “The issue of inconsistency is a jury question and the verdict will be sustained if supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Id. In order for the State to obtain convictions for first-degree murder under the felony murder theory in this case, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlawful killings of Gibson, Keenan, and Robinson were committed while Smith was engaged “in the attempt to perpetrate” robbery. § 782.04(1)(a)2.d., Fla. Stat. (2012). “In order to prove attempted armed robbery, the State must show: (1) the formation of an intent to commit the crime of robbery; (2) the commission of some physical act in furtherance of the robbery; and (3) the use of a firearm.” Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1312, 1317 (Fla. 1997). Section 812.13(1), Florida Statutes, defines robbery as “the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other -8- property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.” The direct evidence standard of review applies to the convictions for the murders of Robinson, Gibson, and Keenan under the felony murder theory. See Twilegar, 42 So. 3d at 189-90. Here, the State presented the testimony of Breon Williams, an eyewitness to those crimes. Williams testified that: (1) he went with Smith to buy narcotics; (2) when they arrived at the house, Robinson opened the door, and Gibson and Keenan were sitting at the dining room table; (3) Smith went to the dining room with Robinson; (4) he heard Smith say “[g]ive it up;” (5) seconds later he heard gunshots; and (6) as he ran out of the house, he saw Smith shoot Robinson. Further, forensic evidence—Smith’s palm print on the Plexiglas interior of the back door—established that Smith had been at the crime scene, which contradicts his initial assertion that he had never been inside the house. A rational trier of fact, when viewing the above evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could conclude that the State proved each element of firstdegree felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt in the deaths of Gibson, Keenan, and Robinson. First, a rational trier of fact could conclude that Smith attempted to commit armed robbery when he told Robinson to “[g]ive it up” while holding a firearm. Next, a rational trier of fact could also conclude that Gibson, Keenan, and Robinson were unlawfully killed while Smith was attempting to perpetrate the -9- armed robbery based on: (1) Williams’ testimony that he saw Smith shoot Robinson; (2) Williams’ testimony that he saw Gibson and Keenan in the same room a few seconds before the attempted armed robbery; (3) the testimony of law enforcement officers that they found Gibson and Keenan with gunshot wounds at the crime scene shortly afterwards; and (4) the evidence that the gunshot wounds sustained by all three victims were inflicted by the same gun. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation in the murders of Gibson and Keenan, the circumstantial evidence standard applies. See id. at 188. The evidence to prove premeditation in the murders of Gibson and Keenan is wholly circumstantial because there were no witnesses to these two murders and Smith’s admission—made in the car as he fled the crime scene—that he shot three people did not establish premeditation. At trial, Smith argued that he was innocent of all crimes charged and the witnesses against him were not credible. On appeal, Smith for the first time claims that the murders of Gibson and Keenan were “reflexive” in response to being shot at by Gibson and Keenan and that the State did not present any evidence to contradict this theory of self-defense. The relevant inquiry regarding whether the circumstantial evidence of guilt is inconsistent with the defense’s theory of innocence is based on the evidence presented and the theory argued to the jury at trial. See id.; State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989). Further, even if this Court were to consider Smith’s new self-defense - 10 - argument on appeal, the evidence conclusively refutes Smith’s claim that Keenan was shooting at him. This Court has defined premeditation as requiring more than a mere intent to kill; it is a fully formed conscious purpose to kill. This purpose to kill may be formed a moment before the act but must exist for a sufficient length of time to permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed and the probable result of that act. Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Wilson v. State, 493 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 1986)). This Court has further explained that “[e]vidence from which premeditation may be inferred includes such matters as the nature of the weapon used, the presence or absence of adequate provocation, previous difficulties between the parties, the manner in which the homicide was committed, and the nature and manner of the wounds inflicted.” Twilegar, 42 So. 3d at 190 (quoting Larry v. State, 104 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1958)). The evidence of Smith’s guilt under the premeditation theory includes the following: (1) Smith brought a gun with him to the crime scene; (2) Gibson and Keenan retreated to the bedroom area of the house during the brief period of time between Smith’s entering the home and his murdering Robinson; (3) Smith could have left the house through the same door that opens into the kitchen that he used to enter the house and that Williams used to run out of the house; (4) Smith had to move from the kitchen and dining room area into the living room area to shoot - 11 - Gibson and Keenan; (5) shell casings from Smith’s gun were found in the living room; (6) the shell casings from Smith’s gun that correlated to the wounds sustained by Robinson were found in the kitchen and dining room area; (7) Keenan could not have been shooting at Smith because she was unarmed when police discovered her body and she died within seconds as a result of a gunshot wound piercing her heart; and (8) all of the shell casings from the rifle fired by Gibson were found in the bedroom and hallway area. This evidence establishes that rather than leaving the home after shooting Robinson, Smith made a deliberate choice to locate and shoot Gibson and Keenan, who had retreated to the bedroom area. Therefore, the evidence cannot be reconciled with Smith’s hypothesis of innocence. Accordingly, the evidence of Smith’s guilt is sufficient to support his convictions under both the felony murder and premeditation theories.