Hicks v. State
2010 WL 2788652, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10444, 41 So.3d 327 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for second-degree murder, the state must prove beyond the defendant's extremely reckless conduct that the act was committed with ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent. Extremely reckless behavior alone, such as fleeing police at high speeds in a dangerous manner, is insufficient to establish the requisite mental state for second-degree murder and is more appropriately classified as manslaughter.
Facts:
- In the middle of the night on September 26, 2007, Charles Hicks was driving a car at high speeds through St. Petersburg.
- After running a red light and stopping in the road, police officers arrived.
- Hicks drove his car directly towards one police vehicle but swerved away before hitting it.
- Hicks then fled from the police by driving north onto a southbound exit ramp of Interstate 275.
- Hicks continued driving at an estimated speed of 76.5 miles per hour in the wrong direction in the southbound lanes.
- While on an overpass, Hicks's vehicle collided head-on with another car.
- The collision injured the driver of the other car and killed her brother, who was a passenger.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Charles Hicks in a state trial court with multiple offenses, including second-degree murder and vehicular homicide for a single death.
- At trial, Hicks moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the State failed to prove he was the driver; the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Hicks on all charges.
- The trial court adjudicated Hicks guilty and sentenced him to life in prison for second-degree murder, but did not sentence him for the vehicular homicide conviction.
- Hicks (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal against the State of Florida (appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's act of driving the wrong way on an interstate at high speed while fleeing police, resulting in a fatal collision, constitute conduct evincing the 'ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent' required for a second-degree murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Morris, Judge.
No. A defendant's act of driving the wrong way on an interstate at high speed while fleeing police is insufficient to establish the 'ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent' required for a second-degree murder conviction. The court reasoned that second-degree murder requires a 'depraved mind,' which precedent defines as acting with a specific malicious intent, not merely extreme recklessness. Citing Ellison v. State, the court found that Hicks's conduct, while showing a reckless disregard for human life, was motivated by a desire to flee arrest, not by any specific malice toward the occupants of the other car. The court emphasized that 'extremely reckless behavior itself is insufficient from which to infer any malice' and that such malicious intent generally requires more than an instant to develop, particularly when the victim is unknown to the defendant. Therefore, the evidence supported a conviction for the lesser-included offense of manslaughter, not second-degree murder.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between the mens rea (mental state) for second-degree murder and manslaughter in Florida. It clarifies that even extraordinarily dangerous acts committed while fleeing law enforcement do not, by themselves, satisfy the 'depraved mind' element of murder, which requires proof of specific malice. The ruling establishes a high evidentiary bar for prosecutors, requiring them to present distinct evidence of ill will or hatred, rather than simply relying on inferences drawn from the sheer recklessness of the defendant's actions. This precedent makes it more difficult to secure second-degree murder convictions in fatal high-speed chase scenarios, channeling such cases toward manslaughter charges instead.
Unlock the full brief for Hicks v. State