LAFLIPE 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., 2004 ** JOHNNIE LAFLIPE, ** Appellant, v. ** CASE NO. 3D03-9 ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** Appellee. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-23049 ** Opinion filed November 24, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Kevin M. Emas, Judge. Clayton R. Kaeiser, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Meredith L. Balo, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LEVY, SHEVIN, and RAMIREZ, JJ. RAMIREZ, J. Johnnie Laflipe appeals from the trial court s final judgment of conviction and sentence, finding him guilty of one count of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first- degree murder. We affirm because none of Laflipe s three points on appeal have any merit. First, we reject Laflipe s contention that the trial court erred in invalid allowing excited Immacula utterance Toussaint s theory, in testimony violation of under an Laflipe s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. We review this ruling under the abuse of discretion standard. Damren v. State, 696 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1997). The trial court allowed the statement by Phanuel Toussaint to his sister identifying Laflipe as the man who shot him. Although there was no definitive time regarding when Toussaint was shot and when he arrived at his home, he was still in an excited state after being shot where blood was coming out of his wound, he was moaning in pain, and he told his sister, Immacula, within minutes of coming home, the identity of his shooter. See Pope v. State, 679 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1996); Henyard v. State, 689 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1996). We find no abuse of discretion. Laflipe next irrelevant and concerning his claims that excessively association the trial prejudicial with the court erred testimony Zombie in and Boys allowing arguments street gang. However, the record reflects that the trial court properly limited any testimony concerning the Zombie Boys gang, and Laflipe was not prejudiced by the admission of such referred to the Zombie Boys as a gang. 2 testimony. The State never In addition, it was through Laflipe s own questioning of Immacula Toussaint on cross-examination that the jury heard that the Zombie Boys was a gang, when the defense asked her, Your brother was not a member of the gang? the trial court did not err in allowing testimony Furthermore, that Laflipe belonged to a group known as the Zombie Boys where it was relevant to See Reyes v. State, 783 So. show his motive for shooting Toussaint. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (gang evidence admissible to prove motive at trial). held relevant and Here, Laflipe s relationship with the Zombie Boys was relevant to prove motive because the State s theory was that Laflipe shot Toussaint to avenge the shooting of another member of the Zombie Boys. Zombie Boys was error, introduced at trial. it was Even if the reference to the harmless, based on the evidence State v. Diguilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). Finally, with respect to Laflipe s claim that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying his request to interview a trial juror following the verdict where Laflipe had reason to believe that the verdict might misconduct, we allegations related be subject disagree. to to The matters legal record that challenge reflects she was based that the influenced on juror juror s by the foreman, or that a fellow juror was influenced by another juror. Juror interviews are not permitted regarding any matter that inheres to the verdict and relates to jury deliberations. 717 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1998). Devony v. State, Thus, the trial court properly denied 3 Laflipe s request to interview the juror in question where the allegations concerned matters which inhered in the verdict. In conclusion, we affirm Laflipe s conviction because the three points raised on appeal have no merit. Affirmed. 4 and sentence,
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.
