Starks v. State
223 So. 3d 1045
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Richard Starks attended a house party, repeatedly provoked the victim throughout the evening, and later approached the victim who was heavily intoxicated and sitting slumped in a plastic chair.
- Starks struck the seated victim; the first blow rendered the victim unconscious and limp in the chair.
- Despite the victim's unconscious, defenseless state and multiple attempts by guests to restrain him, Starks broke free three times and landed multiple additional punches to the victim's head and face.
- The victim suffered blunt head and neck trauma (including cranial hemorrhage and a broken neck bone), was transported to a hospital, and was pronounced dead; medical testimony linked repeated blows to the fatal injuries.
- Defense moved for judgment of acquittal only on the ground that the State failed to prove Starks's conduct was "imminently dangerous" under Fla. Stat. § 782.04(2); the trial court denied the motion and a jury convicted Starks of second-degree murder.
- On appeal, Starks argued the State presented insufficient evidence that punching (particularly punching an unconscious person) constituted an "imminently dangerous" act and also raised a deprivation-of-depraved-mind argument (not preserved below).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Starks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant's repeated punching of an unconscious, seated victim was "imminently dangerous" under § 782.04(2) | The facts (victim intoxicated, unconscious, defenseless; multiple repeated punches to head despite restraint attempts) show a person of ordinary judgment would know the conduct was reasonably certain to kill or cause serious bodily injury | Punching (categorically) is not reasonably certain to kill or cause serious bodily injury; medical testimony suggested striking an unconscious person is simply "bad," not necessarily "imminently dangerous" | Affirmed: sufficient evidence that repeatedly punching an unconscious, seated victim was imminently dangerous; court rejects categorical rule against punching-based second-degree murder convictions |
| Whether the record shows a "depraved mind" (ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent) | Defendant had hours of escalating provocation and then mercilessly beat an unconscious victim; conduct supports finding of depraved mind | (Not preserved at trial; argued on appeal) Characterizes depravity as typically requiring more than an instant | Court finds evidence supports depraved-mind element; no fundamental error and defense counsel not ineffective for failing to preserve the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2010) (sets three-prong test for "imminently dangerous" and "depraved mind")
- Bellamy v. State, 977 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (definition of imminently dangerous conduct cited by Montgomery)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (standard of review for motion for judgment of acquittal)
- Storey v. State, 13 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1943) (upholding second-degree murder where defendant repeatedly punched an older seated victim)
- Dillen v. State, 202 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (upholding second-degree murder for fatal assault with hands/fists)
- Larsen v. State, 485 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (sufficient evidence where defendant struck a physically vulnerable victim)
- Light v. State, 841 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (discusses temporal considerations for showing hatred, spite, or evil intent)