green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
53.6 score
“where, however, the defendant was a willing participant in the underlying felony and the murder resulted from forces which set in motion, no independent act instruction is appropriate.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Woods v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County)
where, however, the defendant was a willing participant in the underlying felony and the murder resulted from forces which set in motion, no independent act instruction is appropriate.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
White v. State
admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mills v. State
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
only a finding that the criminal episode had ceased might give significance to ray's as the shooter' argument
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edouard v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Manatee County)
(Doc. 1 at 6.) The independent act doctrine applies “when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.” Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
John A. Miller v. Janay Conney
Shaw v. Jain, 914 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (citing Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 610 (Fla. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Debella v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
The independent act doctrine applies “when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.” Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Leppert v. Secretary, Department of Corrections(Putnam County)
(4×)
Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000) (citations cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jonard Edmund Banks v. State of Florida
The independent act doctrine applies “when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, ‘which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’” Cannon v. State, 18 So. 3d 562, 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Putnam County)
Co-defendant acquired guns from inside of the home.” “The ‘independent act’ doctrine applies ‘when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, “which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.”’” Roberts v. State, 4 So. 3d 1261, 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vaughan v. Secretary Florida Department Of Corrections (Duval County)
See Lovette v. State, 636 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1994); Perez v. State, 711 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 728 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1998), and cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1120 , 119 S.Ct. 1772 , 143 L.Ed.2d 801 (1999); State v. Amaro, 436 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). 30 Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. State of Florida
Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
Regarding the independent act defense to the principal theory Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal has explained, The “independent act” doctrine applies “when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, ‘which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’” Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Dell v. State, 661 So. 2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
However, when a defendant “was a willing participant in the underlying felony and the murder resulted from forces which they set in motion, no independent act instruction is appropriate.” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ragland v. Florida Attorney General (Lee County)
Under Florida law, the independent act doctrine applies “when one co-felon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his co-felon, ‘which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’” Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Ward v. State, 568 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. State
While we review the admission of evidence for “a clear abuse of discretion,” Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 610 (Fla. 2000), we are unpersuaded by the State’s argument.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deontrez Levon Kitt v. State of Florida
“The ‘independent act’ doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, ‘which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’” Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Ward v. State, 568 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. State
While we review the admission of evidence for “a clear abuse of discretion,” Ray v. State, 755 So. 2d 604, 610 (Fla. 2000), we are unpersuaded by the State’s argument.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnny L. Jones v. State
Co-defendant acquired guns from inside of the home.” “The ‘independent act’ doctrine applies ‘when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofel-on, “which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.” ’ ” Roberts v. State, 4 So.3d 1261, 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. State
DISCUSSION “Admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Padron v. State
Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simon v. State
“The ‘independent act’ doctrine arises when one co-felon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his co-felon, ‘which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’ ” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brugal v. State
We review the trial court’s ruling on this evidentiary point for “a clear abuse of discretion.” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tavares David Calloway v. State of Florida
E.g., Hall v. State, 107 So.3d 262, 273 (Fla. 2012) (citing Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla. 2000)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Pernell McCloud v. State of Florida
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Furthermore, we have also found it significant that the defendant was neither the “ringleader,” see Puccio, 701 So.2d at 868 , nor a “dominant player in the crimes,” see Bay v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 612 (Fla.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tilus v. State
Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000). ‘While there appear to be few reported cases on the point, all agree that such use of aliases may be derogatory to the reputation of the defendant, and should be avoided, but that the question of whether prejudicial error exists should be determined by the surrounding circumstances of the case.” A.G.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McDade v. State
THE VICTIM’S BOYFRIEND’S TESTIMONY McDade claims that the victim’s boyfriend’s testimony that the victim told him that she was being raped by McDade should have been excluded as hearsay. 2 “Admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“Admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Armstrong v. State
(2×)
Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000); Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 25 (Fla.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ward v. State
“Admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002) (quoting Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. State
(2×)
Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. State
Indeed, the independent act doctrine only arises “when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofel-on, “which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’ ” Willacy v. State, 967 So.2d 131, 141 (Fla.2007) (quoting Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla.2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harvey v. State
(2×)
Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Orme v. State
(2×)
See Blackwelder v. State, 851 So.2d 650, 652 (Fla.2003); Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 611 (Fla.2000).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Cannon v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
“The ‘independent act’ doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, ‘which fall outside of, and are for eign to, the common design of the original collaboration.’” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla.2000) (quoting Dell, 661 So.2d at 1306 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. State
Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000); Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 16 (Fla.2000); Cole v. State, 701 So.2d 845, 854 (Fla.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Franklin v. State
See, e.g., Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 203 (Fla.2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2294 , 164 L.Ed.2d 820 (2006); Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000); Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 25 (Fla.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hildwin v. State
Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000); Alston v. State, 723 So.2d 148, 156-57 (Fla.1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles v. State
The lethal act will be in furtherance of or causally connected to the original scheme where it assists in escape or the avoidance of "immediate detection," see Lovette *583 v. State, 636 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Fla. 1994), or "[w]here . . . the defendant was a willing participant in the underlying felony and the murder resulted from forces which they set in motion," see Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Linn v. Fossum
This is an entirely different situation than allowing an expert to testify that his or her opinion on the standard of care is based, in part, on hearsay conversations with colleagues that took place after the incident giving rise to the lawsuit. [6] Although we do not decide the issue, if an expert such as Dr. Weaver-Osterholtz cannot form an opinion on the appropriate standard of care based on her own past practices and knowledge in the field, perhaps that expert is not qualified to render the opinion. [7] "Admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reve…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wagner v. State
In Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 609 (Fla.2000), the supreme court explained: The "independent act" doctrine arises when one cofelon, who previously participated in a common plan, does not participate in acts committed by his cofelon, "which fall outside of, and are foreign to, the common design of the original collaboration." Dell v. State, 661 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quoting Ward v. State, 568 So.2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shaw v. Jain
E.g., Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000) ("Admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.").
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. State
"Admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been *621 a clear abuse of that discretion." Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
A.K. v. State
“Admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FLORIDA PLASTERING, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Dennis ALDERMAN, Respondent.
v.
Dennis ALDERMAN, Respondent.
SC94511.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan 20, 2000.
Anthony Reinert, Miami, Florida, for Petitioners.
Jacob D. Maldonado of Maldonado & Fernandez, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Respondent.
QUINCE, J.
We have for review a decision on the following question of great public importance certified by the First District Court of Appeal in Alderman v. Florida Plastering, 748 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998):
WHERE AN EMPLOYER TAKES A WORKERS' COMPENSATION OFFSET UNDER SECTION 440.20(15), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), AND INITIALLY INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PAID UNDER SECTION 440.15(1)(e)(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO RECALCULATE THE OFFSET BASED ON THE YEARLY 5% INCREASE IN SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS?
We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in City of Clearwater v. Acker, 755 So.2d 597 (Fla.1999), we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the First District's decision in this case.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.