DUBOSE v. State
75 So. 3d 383
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dubose was convicted of first-degree felony murder, burglary as the supporting offense, and shooting or throwing deadly missiles.
- The jury found Appellant and his two brothers fired 29 bullets into a wood-frame house, killing an eight-year-old girl who was shielding younger cousins.
- The attack occurred in retaliation for an earlier altercation between one brother and a resident of the house.
- Appellant challenged the burglary charge as applied, claiming the curtilage was vague and that the yard was not fully enclosed.
- Appellant also argued the trial court abused discretion by limiting cross-examination of a key prosecution witness about uncharged crimes potentially used as leverage for cooperation.
- The appellate court addressed preservation, statutory interpretation of curtilage, sufficiency of enclosure, and witness impeachment limits, and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burglary as applied to curtilage | Dubose argues curtilage is vague and not defined in 810.02(1). | State contends curtilage is defined via 810.011 and enclosure requirement. | Curtilage included; enclosure sufficient; conviction sustained. |
| Sufficiency of enclosure for curtilage | yard not fully enclosed means no burglary. | Enclosure need not be continuous; ungated opening permitted. | Yard meets enclosure requirement under Hamilton and Jacobs; burglary valid. |
| Limits on cross-examining witness about uncharged charges | Cross-exam should reveal other potential charges; bias/motive. | Details of uncharged/charged offenses not sufficiently relevant; discretion to limit. | Trial court properly limited to avoid speculation; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.1995) (curtilage includes surrounding enclosure in evaluating burglary)
- Jacobs v. State, 41 So. 3d 1004 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (enclosure need not be continuous; ungated openings permitted)
- Chambers v. State, 700 So. 2d 441 (Fla.4th DCA 1997) (fencing with gaps may satisfy enclosure for curtilage)
- Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla.2002) (facial challenges to constitutionality can be raised on appeal; as-applied requires preservation)
- Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1982) (preservation requirement for constitutional challenges)
- Lamore v. State, 983 So. 2d 665 (Fla.5th DCA 2008) (as-applied challenges require preservation)
- Groover v. State, 632 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1st DCA 1994) (preservation and appellate review standards)
- Coolen v. State, 696 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1997) (witness impeachment when charges pending supports bias/motive)