THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ALUDIN JAEL MATUTE-CHIRINOS RESPONDENT
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.
Florida's petition for certiorari is denied because the trial court properly determined that the evidence was insufficient to support jury instructions on the aggravating circumstances of heinous, atrocious, or cruel murder and murder committed during kidnapping.
A trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law when it determines that evidence is insufficient to support jury instructions on aggravating circumstances in a capital case.
[1] A trial court may determine as a matter of law that evidence is insufficient to support jury instructions on aggravating circumstances in capital cases, including heinous…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state sought certiorari review of a trial court order finding insufficient evidence to support jury instructions on aggravating circumstances in a…
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 Capital Felony Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state seeks certiorari review of an order finding the record evidence to be insufficient to warrant jury instructions on the aggravating circumstance of section 921.141(h), Florida Statutes (1997), that the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel and section 921.141(d), Florida Statutes (1997), that the capital felony was committed while the respondent was engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit a kidnapping. We have jurisdiction to entertain this petition. See State v. Matute-Chirinos, 713 So. 2d 1006 (Fla.1998).
We conclude that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law when it determined, as a matter-of law, that the evidence presented in this case did not support a finding that the homicide was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, see Donaldson v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S245, 722 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1998); Buckner v. State, 714 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1998); Richardson v. State, 604 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1992); Cheshire v. State, 568 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1990); Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1988), or that the homicide was committed while the respondent was engaged in the commission of or attempted commission of a kidnapping, see Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963, 965-66 (Fla.1983); see also Berry v. State, 668 So. 2d 967, 969 (Fla.1996). The petition is therefore denied.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1988)
- Donaldson v. State, 722 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1998)
- Cheshire v. State, 568 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1990)
- Germaine Berry v. State, 668 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1996)
- Richardson v. State, 604 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1992)
- Buckner v. State, 714 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Aludin Jael Matute-Chirinos, 713 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1998)