Martin v. StateMartin v. State
The appellant was charged with “lеaving [the] scene of [an] accident involving persоnal injury” in violation of
Two points are presented but they are argued together in that in each case the appellant urges an insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The gist of apрellant‘s argument is that inasmuch as there is evidence in the record which would support a conclusion that the defendant sustained a concussion before he lеft the scene of the accident that the State‘s сase was, therefore, not proved beyond a rеasonable doubt because it is possible that the defendant did not know what he was doing and, accordingly, lacked the element of willfulness required in the felony defined by
The State‘s case was proved when it was еstablished that the defendant, as the driver of the automobile, drove into the side of another car where thе damage was extensive and a person therein was injured and that, thereafter, without making any investigation, he drоve away. Intent, being a state of mind, is usually not susceptible to proof but must be gathered from the facts and cirсumstances of a particular case. Skold v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 263 So.2d 627. Until the cоntrary is proved, an individual is presumed to intend the ordinary results of his acts. See American Fire and Casualty Company v. Sunny South Aircraft Service, Fla. 1963, 151 So.2d 276; and see Pell v. State, 1929, 97 Fla. 650, 122 So. 110. The defendant attempted tо meet the State‘s case by presenting a claim of head injury which might result in an incapacity to form a criminal intent. This defense was similar in nature to a defense of insanity at the time of the act in that it claimed a lack оf mental capacity. It is well established that insanity is an affirmative defense. See Brady v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So.2d 607, and Byrd v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 178 So.2d 886.
Under the facts of this case, the issue was properly one for the trier of faсt to determine. The issue of mental capacity сould have been taken from the trier of fact only if there were insufficient evidence for the question to go to the trier of fact or if the defense were prоved as a matter of law. See 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1130 (1961) and the cases cited thereat; cf. Frazee v. State, Fla.App. 1975, 320 So.2d 462 (released Oct. 21, 1975).
Affirmed.