State v. Brady

Citations: 745 So. 2d 954; 1999 WL 628779Docket: 91,951

Court: Supreme Court of Florida; August 19, 1999; Florida; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case of State of Florida v. Bill Brady, Jr., addressing a certified question regarding whether a defendant can be convicted of attempted murder of both an intended victim and an innocent bystander when there is no intent to murder the latter. The court declined to answer this question and partially quashed the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Brady was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder but was convicted of two counts of attempted second-degree murder. The incident occurred when Brady fired a shot at Ricky Mack, intending to kill him, but accidentally injured Toya Harrell instead. The Fifth District upheld the conviction for Mack but reduced the conviction for Harrell to aggravated battery, ruling that transferred intent could not apply without evidence of intent to kill her.

The court examined the application of transferred intent in cases of attempted second-degree murder, noting that this was a matter of first impression. While transferred intent is recognized in Florida law, it typically applies to completed crimes. The court highlighted that if Harrell had been killed, transferred intent could establish Brady's culpability for murder. However, since she was only injured, and the jury found Brady guilty of attempted second-degree murder—which does not require specific intent to kill—the application of transferred intent was not warranted in this instance. The court referenced a prior ruling (Gentry v. State) establishing that attempted second-degree murder does not necessitate proof of specific intent for prosecution, thereby reinforcing its decision.

To establish attempted second-degree murder of Harrell, the state needed to prove two elements: (1) Brady intentionally committed an act that would have resulted in Harrell's death but for intervention or failure to complete the act, and (2) the act was imminently dangerous to others and reflected a depraved mind without regard for human life. Evidence presented at trial indicated that Brady's act of firing a deadly weapon in close proximity to Mack and Harrell could lead a jury to reasonably conclude that he acted with such depraved intent. While it was clearer that Mack was the intended target, Harrell's proximity also satisfied the requirement for an act dangerously threatening to others. The doctrine of transferred intent was deemed unnecessary for this case, as the jury convicted Brady on attempted second-degree murder without needing to invoke it. The trial court's jury instructions did not include transferred intent for the lesser offenses, including attempted second-degree murder. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was lawful based on the analysis from prior case law. Thus, the certified question was not answered, the district court's decision was not quashed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Concurring opinions were noted, including a distinction on the application of intent in attempted murder cases.

The doctrine of transferred intent has been rejected by several jurisdictions regarding attempted murder when the intended victim is not harmed. Relevant cases include Jones v. State, People v. Chinchilla, and People v. Fernandez, which hold that if the defendant aimed at the intended victim but no death occurred, the completed crime of attempted murder exists without needing to apply transferred intent. The state cited State v. Wilson and State v. Gillette to argue for the application of transferred intent; however, the Maryland Court of Appeals later disapproved Wilson's holding while upholding its result due to sufficient evidence against each victim. Maryland's Court of Special Appeals in Harvey v. State affirmed that transferred intent is limited to cases where the defendant intends to kill one person but mistakenly kills another, thus not applicable in instances of missed shots or injuries to unintended victims. In contrast, some jurisdictions do apply transferred intent to attempted murder cases, as seen in State v. Rodriguez-Gonzales and People v. Hill, where the required proof of intent to kill remains regardless of whether the victim was the intended target.