03-0009 LAFLIPE V. STATE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2004 » 03-0009 LAFLIPE V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 03-0009 LAFLIPE V. STATE

Case Date: 11/24/2004

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 ** ** Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** Opinion filed November 24, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Kevin M. Emas, Judge. Clayton R. Kaeiser, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Meredith L. Balo, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LEVY, SHEVIN, and RAMIREZ, JJ. RAMIREZ, J. Johnnie Laflipe appeals from the trial court's final ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-23049 CASE NO. 3D03-9

JOHNNIE LAFLIPE,

judgment of conviction and sentence, finding him guilty of one count of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first-

degree murder.

We affirm because none of Laflipe's three points

on appeal have any merit. First, we reject Laflipe's contention that the trial court erred invalid in allowing Immacula Toussaint's in testimony of under an

excited

utterance

theory,

violation

Laflipe's

Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. under the abuse of discretion standard. So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1997).

We review this ruling Damren v. State, 696

The trial court allowed the statement

by Phanuel Toussaint to his sister identifying Laflipe as the man who shot him. Although there was no definitive time

regarding when Toussaint was shot and when he arrived at his home, he was still in an excited state after being shot where blood was coming out of his wound, he was moaning in pain, and he told his sister, Immacula, within minutes of coming home, the identity of his shooter. See Pope v. State, 679 So. 2d 710 We

(Fla. 1996); Henyard v. State, 689 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1996). find no abuse of discretion. Laflipe irrelevant concerning next and his claims that the trial court erred in

allowing arguments gang.

excessively association

prejudicial with the

testimony Boys"

and

"Zombie

street

However, the record reflects that the trial court properly limited any testimony concerning the Zombie Boys gang, and Laflipe was not prejudiced by the admission of such testimony. The State never

referred to the Zombie Boys as a gang.

In addition, it was through

2

Laflipe's own questioning of Immacula Toussaint on cross-examination that the jury heard that the Zombie Boys was a gang, when the defense asked her, "Your brother was not a member of the gang?" the trial court did not err in allowing testimony Furthermore, that Laflipe

belonged to a group known as the Zombie Boys where it was relevant to show his motive for shooting Toussaint. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (gang See Reyes v. State, 783 So. evidence held relevant and

admissible to prove motive at trial).

Here, Laflipe's relationship

with the Zombie Boys was relevant to prove motive because the State's theory was that Laflipe shot Toussaint to avenge the shooting of another member of the Zombie Boys. Zombie Boys was error, it was Even if the reference to the based on the evidence

harmless,

introduced at trial.

State v. Diguilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

Finally, with respect to Laflipe's claim that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying his request to interview a trial juror following the verdict where Laflipe had reason to believe that the verdict might we be subject The matters to legal challenge reflects she was based the on juror

misconduct, allegations

disagree. to

record that

that

juror's by the

related

influenced

foreman, or that a fellow juror was influenced by another juror. Juror interviews are not permitted regarding any matter that inheres to the verdict and relates to jury deliberations. 717 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1998). Devony v. State,

Thus, the trial court properly denied

3

Laflipe's

request

to

interview

the

juror

in

question

where

the

allegations concerned matters which inhered in the verdict. In conclusion, we affirm Laflipe's conviction and sentence,

because the three points raised on appeal have no merit. Affirmed.

4

Download 03-0009 LAFLIPE V. STATE.pdf