Quintae Davouris Hudson v. State of Florida
17-3593
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Aug 14, 2019Background
- Quintae Davouris Hudson was jailed awaiting trial for shooting/throwing a deadly missile into a vehicle when an eyewitness identified him in a deposition; the eyewitness was later shot and killed before trial.
- The State charged Hudson with first‑degree murder (as a principal), conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder, multiple counts of witness tampering, directing gang activity, and the original missile charge.
- The State’s theory: Hudson solicited and assisted fellow gang members to kill the eyewitness to prevent testimony; evidence included jailhouse phone recordings/transcripts, phone records, testimony from two girlfriends, investigators, and gang experts.
- At trial Hudson moved for judgment of acquittal twice on boilerplate grounds that the State failed to prove a prima facie case; both motions were denied.
- Hudson raised on appeal that the evidence was insufficient—he could not be convicted as an aider/abettor of an unknown shooter—and alternatively asserted fundamental error; he also challenged hearsay rulings (which the court affirmed without further comment).
- The court concluded the record preserved only a claim of fundamental error, rejected it because evidence supported at least criminal solicitation, and therefore affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to convict Hudson as a principal/aider & abettor of murder | Evidence was circumstantial and did not identify or connect Hudson to the actual shooter; cannot aid/abet an unknown perpetrator | Sufficient circumstantial evidence showed Hudson solicited and aided the murder through communications, providing the victim’s address, and celebratory statements | Affirmed — court found enough evidence at least for solicitation; no reversible insufficiency for fundamental error review |
| Preservation of judgment of acquittal arguments | Hudson contends his motions preserved insufficiency arguments | State contends motions were boilerplate and failed to identify missing elements or outline circumstantial defense per precedent | Held against Hudson — motions were insufficient to preserve the specific circumstantial‑evidence arguments; review limited to fundamental error |
| Fundamental error claim (crime unsupported by evidence) | Asserts conviction for a crime not proved is fundamental error warranting reversal | State argues evidence established criminal solicitation even if not the charged murder, so no total lack of proof | Rejected — court found evidence supported solicitation, so no fundamental error |
| Hearsay objections to jailhouse phone recordings/transcripts | Hudson argued certain statements were inadmissible hearsay | State defended admissibility; court considered and rejected Hudson’s hearsay objections | Affirmed (hearsay issues affirmed without additional comment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rasley v. State, 878 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA) (standard of review for judgment of acquittal and that defendant admits evidence and reasonable inferences when moving)
- Sutton v. State, 834 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA) (same principle regarding inferences on judgment of acquittal)
- Newsome v. State, 199 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA) (defendant must identify missing element and, for circumstantial evidence, outline defense to preserve appellate review)
- Cornwell v. State, 425 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA) (a boilerplate motion that the State failed to prove a prima facie case is insufficient to preserve an appeal)
- Charles v. State, 253 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA) (appellant cannot raise for first time on appeal that special circumstantial evidence standard applies)
- F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla.) (discusses when insufficiency can constitute fundamental error)
- The Florida Bar v. Marable, 645 So. 2d 438 (Fla.) (elements of criminal solicitation; no agreement required, only command/request/encouragement plus intent)