Chat with us, powered by LiveChat In the second part of your training, you will analyze a closed homicide case in your community or as close to your community as possible. You shou | EssayAbode

In the second part of your training, you will analyze a closed homicide case in your community or as close to your community as possible. You shou

 In the second part of your training, you will analyze a closed homicide case in your community or as close to your community as possible. You should have selected a case from Nexis Uni in the Assignment Preparation activity last week. If you have not completed that activity, go back and complete it before continuing with this assignment.In 3–4 pages, summarize the investigation into your selected case. Your analysis should:

  • Describe the circumstances surrounding the case.
  • Summarize the key factors that may have been used to classify the type of death and the finding.
    • Analyze the ways that various environmental factors may have influenced the medical examination and autopsy in this investigation.
  • Identify the forensic methods that were reported in the investigation and their findings.
    • This may include methods like DNA, toxicology, hair and fiber evidence, fingerprints, or any other methods which contributed to the investigation. 
  • Recommend one way that the investigators or forensic team could have strengthened their case based on your understanding of it.
  • Cite three references.
    • One of your references will be the case record that you found from Nexis Uni.
    • Other references may be news articles that pertain to the case, and other court cases or rules that are referenced in the case.
  • Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements.

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2022 LexisNexis

Date and Time: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 8:16:00 PM EDT

Job Number: 170818673

Document (1)

1. State v. Maisonet-Maldonado, 308 So. 3d 63

Client/Matter: -None-

Search Terms: Vehicular Homicide

Search Type: Natural Language

Narrowed by:

Content Type Narrowed by Cases Timeline: May 07, 2017 to May 10, 2022; Court: Florida

Positive As of: May 11, 2022 12:16 AM Z

State v. Maisonet-Maldonado

Supreme Court of Florida

December 10, 2020, Decided

No. SC19-1947

Reporter 308 So. 3d 63 *; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039 **; 45 Fla. L. Weekly S 324

STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JOSE MAISONET- MALDONADO, Respondent.

Prior History: [**1] Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance. Fifth District – Case No. 5D18- 942. (Orange County).

Maisonet-Maldonado v. State, 283 So. 3d 862, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 15697, 2019 WL 5280876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist., Oct. 18, 2019)

Core Terms

offenses, convictions, homicide, fleeing, eluding, lenity, legislative intent, vehicular homicide, serious injury, law enforcement officer, sentence, dual, criminal offense, vehicular manslaughter, same-elements, episode, commit, punish, recede, double jeopardy analysis, serious bodily injury, statutory language, require proof, superseded, killed

Case Summary

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-Defendant's convictions on three counts of fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer causing serious injury or death, and two counts of vehicular homicide were not prohibited by the single homicide rule since the plain meaning of section 775.021, Florida Stat., abolished the single homicide rule and superseded the Supreme Court of Florida's Houser decision, and thus its decision holding otherwise, the Chapman decision was incorrectly decided, defendant's dual convictions were not prohibited by section 775.021, additionally, none of the three statutory exceptions in section 775.021(4)(b) applied to defendant.

Outcome Decision quashed.

LexisNexis® Headnotes

Governments > Courts > Judicial Precedent

HN1[ ] Courts, Judicial Precedent

Section 775.021, Florida Stat., supersedes the Supreme Court of Florida's decisions establishing the single homicide rule and that our decision holding otherwise, the Chapman decision was wrongly decided.

Criminal Law & Procedure > Commencement of Criminal Proceedings > Double Jeopardy > Appeals

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Standards of Review > De Novo Review > Conclusions of Law

HN2[ ] Double Jeopardy, Appeals

A double jeopardy claim based upon undisputed facts presents a pure question of law and is reviewed de novo.

Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental Rights > Procedural Due Process > Double Jeopardy

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple Punishments

Page 2 of 9

HN3[ ] Procedural Due Process, Double Jeopardy

Both the United States and Florida Constitutions contain double jeopardy clauses that prohibit subjecting a person to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same criminal offense. But there is no constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments for different offenses arising out of the same criminal transaction as long as the Legislature intends to authorize separate punishments. The prevailing standard is whether the Legislature intended to authorize separate punishments for the two crimes.

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple Punishments

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Tests for Double Jeopardy Protection

HN4[ ] Double Jeopardy Protection, Multiple Punishments

Absent an explicit statement of legislative intent to authorize separate punishments for two crimes, application of the Blockburger same-elements test pursuant to section 775.021(4), Florida Stat., is the sole method of determining whether multiple punishments are double-jeopardy violations.

Governments > Legislation > Interpretation

HN5[ ] Legislation, Interpretation

A court's determination of the meaning of a statute begins with the language of the statute. If the language of the statute is clear, the statute is given its plain meaning, and the court does not look behind the statute's plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction.

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple Punishments

Governments > Courts > Judicial Precedent

HN6[ ] Double Jeopardy Protection, Multiple

Punishments

The plain meaning of section 775.021, Florida Stat abolished the single homicide rule and superseded the Supreme Court of Florida's Houser decision, and thus its decision holding otherwise, the Chapman, decision was incorrectly decided.

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple Punishments

Governments > Legislation > Effect & Operation > Amendments

HN7[ ] Double Jeopardy Protection, Multiple Punishments

After the 1988 amendment, the plain language of section 775.021, Florida Stat., clearly expresses that offenses which pass the codified Blockburger test should be punished separately and that there is no exception for offenses arising from a single death. Accordingly,the 1988 amendment to section 775.021 superseded the Supreme Court of Florida's Houser decision, the Court's Chapman decision holding otherwise was wrongly decided.

Governments > Courts > Judicial Precedent

HN8[ ] Courts, Judicial Precedent

In evaluating reliance interests, courts consider legitimate expectations of those who have reasonably relied on the precedent. It is generally accepted that reliance interests are at their acme in cases involving property and contract rights. And reliance interests are lowest in cases involving procedural and evidentiary rules. As the United States Supreme Court has observed, the role of stare decisis is reduced in the cases of procedural rules that do not serve as a guide to lawful behavior.

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple Punishments

Governments > Legislation > Interpretation

308 So. 3d 63, *63; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **1

Page 3 of 9

HN9[ ] Double Jeopardy Protection, Multiple Punishments

Under the plain meaning of section 775.021(4)(a), Florida Stat. (1993), a court is required to examine each of a defendant's convictions arising out of the same incident to determine whether each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial. A court may not examine the facts of the record but may only examine the statutory elements of the two offenses to determine whether one requires proof of an element that the other does not. Therefore, when considering a statute that proscribes conduct in the alternative (offenses that can be committed in more than one way), the analysis must consider the entire range of conduct prohibited by the statutes, not the specific conduct charged or proven at trial.

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Elements

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Vehicular Crimes > Vehicular Homicide > Elements

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Penalties

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Acts & Mental States > Mens Rea > Recklessness

Criminal Law & Procedure > Trials > Burdens of Proof > Prosecution

HN10[ ] Fleeing & Eluding, Elements

Fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer causing serious bodily injury or death requires the State to prove that a defendant: (1) willfully fled or attempted to elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized vehicle, (2) drove at a high speed or manner demonstrating a wanton disregard for persons or property, and (3) caused serious bodily injury or death to another person. § 316.1935(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). Vehicular homicide requires the State to prove that a defendant killed a human being by operation of a motor vehicle in reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another. § 782.071(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). The fleeing or eluding offense requires that the defendant be fleeing a law enforcement officer. Vehicular homicide requires that defendant kill another human being, which is not a required element in the fleeing or eluding statute

even though it is sufficient conduct to establish an element of the crime. Simply put, a defendant can commit fleeing or eluding causing serious injury or death without committing vehicular homicide and can commit vehicular homicide without committing fleeing or eluding causing serious injury or death.

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Elements

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Vehicular Crimes > Vehicular Homicide > Elements

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Penalties

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Homicide, Manslaughter & Murder > Voluntary Manslaughter > Elements

HN11[ ] Fleeing & Eluding, Elements

Fleeing or eluding causing serious injury or death requires proof of an attempt to flee, while vehicular manslaughter requires proof of death, which is not necessarily required for the fleeing or eluding offense.

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Convictions

HN12[ ] Double Jeopardy Protection, Convictions

If two statutory offenses are found to be separate under Blockburger, then the lesser offense is not subsumed by the greater offense.

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Elements

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Resisting Arrest > Fleeing & Eluding > Penalties

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Vehicular Crimes > Vehicular Homicide > Elements

Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Double Jeopardy > Double Jeopardy Protection > Multiple Punishments

308 So. 3d 63, *63; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **1

Page 4 of 9

HN13[ ] Fleeing & Eluding, Elements

Dual convictions for fleeing or eluding causing serious injury or death and vehicular manslaughter are not prohibited by section 775.021(4), Florida Stat.

Counsel: Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, Andrew Mich and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defenders, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Respondent.

Judges: POLSTON, J. CANADY, C.J., and LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

Opinion by: POLSTON

Opinion

[*65] POLSTON, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Maisonet- Maldonado v. State, 283 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), in which the Fifth District certified the following question of great public importance:

DOES THE "SINGLE HOMICIDE" RULE FOUND IN HOUSER V. STATE, 474 SO. 2D 1193 (FLA. 1985), PRECLUDE SEPARATE CONVICTIONS OF VEHICULAR HOMICIDE AND FLEEING AND ELUDING CAUSING SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH THAT INVOLVE THE SAME VICTIM?

Maisonet-Maldonado, 283 So. 3d at 863. For the reasons explained below, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the decision of the Fifth District.1

I. BACKGROUND

In 2010, Jose Maisonet-Maldonado stabbed his girlfriend, Berlitz Alvelo, and ran over her with a car, resulting [**2] in her death. After fleeing the scene,

1 We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Maisonet-Maldonado was quickly pursued by law enforcement officers. He then led police on a dangerous, high-speed chase that ended when he crashed into another vehicle. The vehicle's driver, James Laconte, sustained serious injuries, while the vehicle's passengers, Amanda Taylor and Francesca Jeffrey, were killed.

A jury convicted Maisonet-Maldonado of one count of first-degree murder with a weapon for the murder of Ms. Alvelo, three counts of fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer causing serious injury or death, and two counts of vehicular homicide. Amanda Taylor and Francesca Jeffrey were each named as the victim for one count of fleeing and eluding causing serious bodily injury or death and one count of vehicular manslaughter. Maisonet-Maldonado's convictions were upheld by the Fifth District in 2014. Maisonet- Maldonado v. State, 149 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). In 2016, Maisonet-Maldonado filed a postconviction motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging, among other things, that his convictions for vehicular homicide and fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer causing serious injury or death violated the constitutional prohibition against double [*66] jeopardy. Noting that each offense contained [**3] a unique element, the lower court denied Maisonet-Maldonado's motion. Maisonet- Maldonado appealed.

On appeal, the Fifth District concluded that Maisonet- Maldonado's convictions were prohibited under the single homicide rule, which prohibits dual convictions for a single homicide under two different statutes. Relying on our decision in Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985), the Fifth District held that the single homicide rule "prohibits his convictions . . . for vehicular homicide and fleeing and eluding causing serious injury or death that involve the same victim." Maisonet-Maldonado, 283 So. 3d at 862. Accordingly, the Fifth District reversed the postconviction order and certified the question currently before us.

II. ANALYSIS

HN1[ ] Because the statutory language of section 775.021, Florida Statutes (2010), clearly states the intent of the Legislature to punish each available offense and does not provide an exception for offenses arising from a single death, we conclude that section 775.021 supersedes our decisions establishing the single homicide rule and that our decision holding otherwise,

308 So. 3d 63, *63; 2020 Fla. LEXIS 2039, **1

Page 5 of 9

State v. Chapman, 625 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1993), was wrongly decided.2 Accordingly, we recede from Chapman, answer the certified question in the negative, and quash the Fifth District's decision in Maisonet- Maldonado.

A. Double Jeopardy Principles and the Single Homicide [**4] Rule

HN3[ ] "As this Court has explained, both the United States and Florida Constitutions contain double jeopardy clauses that 'prohibit[ ] subjecting a person to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same criminal offense.'" State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914, 917 (Fla. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 2009)). But "there is no constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments for different offenses arising out of the same criminal transaction as long as the Legislature intends to autho

Related Tags

Academic APA Assignment Business Capstone College Conclusion Course Day Discussion Double Spaced Essay English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature Management Market Masters Math Minimum MLA Nursing Organizational Outline Pages Paper Presentation Questions Questionnaire Reference Response Response School Subject Slides Sources Student Support Times New Roman Title Topics Word Write Writing