Paz v. State
2000 WL 313567, 777 So. 2d 983 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A killing committed in the heat of passion, immediately following adequate legal provocation that would obscure the reason or dominate the volition of an ordinary reasonable person, typically constitutes manslaughter rather than second-degree murder, as it lacks the malice or 'depraved mind regardless of human life' required for murder.
Facts:
- On December 24, 1996, Wilfredo Paz and Esmeralda Paz hosted a party.
- Winton Guillen, Esmeralda's brother-in-law, arrived early on December 25 and stayed at the Paz's residence drinking with Wilfredo after his wife, Mirta, went home.
- Winton went upstairs to the bathroom, and a few minutes later, Wilfredo went upstairs and found Esmeralda crying and not wearing any underwear; she did not respond when he asked what had happened.
- Wilfredo looked for Winton upstairs, then went downstairs to the kitchen, followed by Esmeralda.
- In the kitchen, Esmeralda confronted Winton, yelling at him, 'Why did you do that? Why did you do that to me?'
- Upon realizing Winton had sexually assaulted his wife, Wilfredo immediately grabbed a knife from the kitchen counter and stabbed Winton once in the chest.
- Winton Guillen died as a result of the stabbing.
Procedural Posture:
- Wilfredo Paz was charged with second-degree murder in a trial court.
- Paz filed motions for judgment of acquittal for the second-degree murder charge in the trial court.
- The trial court denied Paz's motions for judgment of acquittal.
- A jury convicted Paz of second-degree murder.
- Paz was sentenced under the 1995 guidelines.
- Paz, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree murder to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, with the State of Florida as the 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 killing that occurs immediately after a defendant discovers his wife has been sexually assaulted, leading to an outburst of passion, demonstrate a 'depraved mind regardless of human life' sufficient for a conviction of second-degree murder under Florida law?
Opinions:
Majority - SHEVIN, Judge
No, a killing that occurs immediately after a defendant discovers his wife has been sexually assaulted, leading to an outburst of passion, does not demonstrate a 'depraved mind regardless of human life' sufficient for a conviction of second-degree murder. The court found that the State failed to prove Wilfredo Paz acted with a 'depraved mind regardless of human life' as required for second-degree murder under section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (1995). Citing Febre v. State, the court explained that the law reduces a killing in the heat of passion from murder to manslaughter due to the temporary suspension of reason by sudden passion and the absence of malice, considering it an 'infirmity of passion to which even good men are subject.' The court reaffirmed that for the heat of passion defense, there must be 'adequate provocation...as might obscure the reason or dominate the volition of an ordinary reasonable man,' referencing Rivers v. State. The undisputed evidence showed Paz killed Winton immediately upon realizing the sexual assault, which constitutes a classic case of manslaughter based on adequate legal provocation, not an act evincing a depraved mind. Therefore, the conviction for second-degree murder was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction for manslaughter. Additionally, Paz's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing under the guidelines in effect before the unconstitutional Chapter 95-184.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between second-degree murder and manslaughter in Florida, particularly regarding the 'heat of passion' defense. It emphasizes that a swift reaction to a severe and legally adequate provocation, such as discovering a spouse's sexual assault, can negate the 'depraved mind' element necessary for murder, reducing the charge to manslaughter. The ruling reinforces the importance of the defendant's immediate mental state and the nature of the provocation in determining culpability. Future cases will likely refer to this precedent when evaluating the adequacy of provocation and the immediacy of the defendant's response in 'heat of passion' defenses.
