VILACIN SAINT LOUIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Vilacin Saint Louis appealed his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed, finding that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Saint Louis entered into an agreement with his codefendants to sell cocaine, and reversed the conviction.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove conspiracy. The state failed to establish an agreement between Saint Louis and the codefendants beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere presence at the scene, even coupled with flight, is insufficient to establish conspiracy.
[1] To prove the crime of conspiracy, the state must establish both an agreement and an intent to commit an offense.
[2] Mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish participation in a conspiracy.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to prove the crime of conspiracy, the state must prove the following two elements: (1) an agreement and (2) an intention to commit an offense.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving conspiracy in Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUndercover officers arranged to buy cocaine from codefendants Servibien and Mathurin at a mobile home. When officers returned at 10:50 p.m., Saint Lou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Elements Of Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Vilacin Saint Louis appeals the judgment adjudicating him guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, arguing insufficiency of the evidence.1 We agree and reverse.
The following is the evidence against Saint Louis presented in the light most favorable to the state. Undercover officers had talked with codefendants Servi-bien and Mathurin about buying a large amount of cocaine. On a prearranged date the officers met Servibien on a street and agreed to meet'him at a mobile home. The officers went to the mobile home and in approximately ten minutes Servibien arrived at the mobile home and went inside the mobile home. Then after fifteen minutes Servibien came out of the mobile home. Servibien said that he could obtain the cocaine if the officers could acquire the money. They agreed to meet back at the mobile home between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. to show Servibien the money. At 10:10 p.m. the officers returned to the mobile home and showed Servibien the money. Servibien told the officers to come back in forty minutes for the cocaine. At 10:50 p.m. the officers returned. Saint Louis approached the officers and tried to sell them cocaine. Neither Servibien nor Mathurin were at the mobile home at that time. When the officers returned to the mobile home at 11:10 p.m., Servibien, Mathurin, and Saint Louis were there. Four cars were parked in the drive, forming an inverted U, with Servibien and Mathurin in a car to the left, an unoccupied car up front, and Saint Louis in a car parked on the right.2 The officers pulled up in the middle. The officers’ testimony differed as to Saint Louis’ presence. One officer testified that the car to the right had its door open and Saint Louis was standing there with his elbow on the roof. The other officer testified that Saint Louis must have been either lying down or crouched in the car because she did not see him in the car at that time but saw him exit the car when the other officers arrived. The officers asked Servibien for the cocaine. Servibien and Mathurin went to the unoccupied vehicle. Servibien returned with a brown bag. Mathurin returned with a gun. The officers signaled for their backup units, and Servibien, Mathurin, and Saint Louis fled.
In order to prove the crime of conspiracy, the state must prove the following two elements: (1) an agreement and (2) an intention to commit an offense. Beke v. State, 423 So. 2d 417 (Fla.2d DCA 1982), review denied, 430 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1983). The state must prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Ashenoff v. State, 391 So. 2d 289 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). Mere presence at the scene is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. Gonzalez v. State, 455 So. 2d 1131 (Fla.2d DCA 1984).
A review of the record shows that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Saint Louis entered into an agreement with Servibien and/or Mathurin to sell cocaine to the officers. In fact, the officers’ first encounter with Saint Louis when he offered to sell the officers cocaine on his own is inconsistent with the hypothesis that he was part of the conspiracy with Servibien and Mathurin. Saint Louis’ presence when Servibien had the cocaine and Mathurin had a gun coupled with the fact that Saint Louis fled is still insufficient to prove conspiracy.
Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal for the offense of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine in favor of Saint Louis.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. . The state also charged Saint Louis with possession of cocaine, delivery of cocaine, and traf-ticking in cocaine. The jury acquitted Saint Louis of those offenses.
. The fourth vehicle was on the side; however, the record is unclear whether it was parked on the right or left side.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mickenberg v. State, 640 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…criminal offense. Ramirez v. State, 371 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1980). To prove the crime of conspiracy, the state must prove an agreement and an intention to commit an offense. Saint Louis v. State, 561 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Mere presence at the scene is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. Saint Louis. Conspiracy is a separate and distinct crime from the offense that is the object of the conspiracy. Ramirez, at 1065. Evidence that a person a…
-
Myron Sheriff v. State, 780 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…en two or more persons to commit a criminal offense. See Ramirez v. State, 371 So. 2d 1063, 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). To prove the crime of conspiracy, the state must prove an agreement and an intention to commit an offense. See Saint Louis v. State, 561 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Conspiracy is a separate and distinct crime from the offense that is the object of the conspiracy. Ramirez, 371 So. 2d at 1065. Evidence that a defendant aided and abetted the commission of the substantive offense is insufficient…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 719 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…riguez responded that with notice of a week or two he could get any amount Pizzuto wanted. Generally, in order to prove the crime of conspiracy, the State must prove both an agreement and an intention to commit an offense. See Saint Louis v. State, 561 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Both elements must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A person’s mere presence at the scene is insufficient to establish his participation in a conspiracy. Id. Here, because the alleged conspiracy was for the purpose of t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campos v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Serv., 391 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Gonzalez v. State, 455 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Beke v. State, 423 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)