LOVETT V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003 WILLIAM LOVETT, ** Appellant, vs. ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. CASE NO. 3D02-913 ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 94-17832 ** Opinion filed July 9, 2003. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Victoria S. Sigler, Judge. John Lipinski, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Barbara A. Zappi (Ft. Lauderdale), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before, COPE, GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ., concur. Lovett v. State Case No. 3D02-913 COPE, J. (concurring). While initially skeptical, in the end I conclude that the outcome would not have been different if a voluntary intoxication defense had been offered.* The defendant s actions were so persistent and goal-directed that the jury inevitably would have concluded the defendant had formed the necessary specific intent. * The crime date was 1994, so the defendant is in the group for which voluntary intoxication offers a defense to specific intent crimes. The defense has subsequently been repealed (with a narrow exception) for crimes committed on or after October 1, 1999. See § 775.051, Fla. Stat. (1999); ch. 99-174, §§ 1-2, Laws of Fla. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.