Rodriguez v. State
147 So. 3d 1066
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Early morning altercation after a party: defendant invited accomplices to the Lopez home, heavily armed, to confront Erik over sexual activity involving defendant’s girlfriend.
- Defendants duct-taped Erik to a chair and attempted to restrain Olga; a shootout followed—Erik was killed, Olga wounded.
- Defendant was tried and convicted of manslaughter, attempted manslaughter, burglary with assault/battery or while armed, conspiracy to commit burglary, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm during a felony.
- At trial defendant requested an independent-act jury instruction and moved for a judgment of acquittal (JOA) on kidnapping for insufficient confinement; both requests were denied.
- Defendant appealed arguing (1) entitlement to an independent-act instruction and (2) insufficient confinement to sustain kidnapping.
- Court of Appeal affirmed: no evidence entitled defendant to independent-act instruction; kidnapping conviction supported under terrorize theory and, alternatively, confinement was sufficient under Faison/Ferguson analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing an independent-act instruction | State: defendant orchestrated the plan; foreseeability of violence defeats independent-act defense | Rodriguez: co-defendant’s shooting was independent and unforeseeable, so instruction required | No error—defendant masterminded armed confrontation; death/violence was foreseeable, so instruction not warranted |
| Whether evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support kidnapping conviction for confinement to facilitate a felony (subsection (a)(2)) | State: confinement (duct-taping, intent to terrorize/assist assault) was substantial or alternatively kidnapping charged under terrorize theory (a)(3) | Rodriguez: confinement was inconsequential because Erik later broke free, so kidnapping cannot stand | Kidnapping affirmed—also charged under intent to terrorize (a)(3), making sufficiency plain; under (a)(2) Faison/Ferguson show initial confinement need not succeed and here it facilitated assault/terrorizing |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying JOA on kidnapping at close of State’s case | State: evidence allowed submission to jury | Rodriguez: no substantial confinement shown | No abuse—evidence of duct-taping, intent to scare/terrorize, and resulting assault supported jury verdict |
| Other procedural claims (counsel substitution; ineffective assistance on face of record) | State: claims lack merit | Rodriguez: sought substitution and alleged IAC | Court affirmed without discussion; claims lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182 (instructional-review standard and discretion in giving jury instructions)
- Goode v. State, 856 So. 2d 1101 (trial court must give requested instruction if any evidence supports defense theory)
- Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604 (definition and scope of independent-act doctrine)
- Bradley v. State, 33 So. 3d 664 (independent-act defense unavailable when death is foreseeable from plan)
- Jackson v. State, 18 So. 3d 1016 (independent act warranted only when cofelon’s act was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence)
- Roberts v. State, 4 So. 3d 1261 (no independent-act instruction when unrebutted evidence shows defendant participated knowing firearms would be used)
- Diaz v. State, 600 So. 2d 529 (unexpected use of gun during crime not an intervening act as matter of law)
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (kidnapping to facilitate felony requires confinement not "inconsequential or inherent" in underlying felony)
- Ferguson v. State, 533 So. 2d 763 (initial confinement’s duration is not integral; focus is whether confinement intended to make crime easier or reduce detection)
- Perry v. State, 57 So. 3d 910 (Faison test applies only to subsection (a)(2) kidnapping charges)
- Frederick v. State, 931 So. 2d 967 (discussion of Faison and substantiality requirement)