Hampton v. State - 336 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

Rule:

Where several persons combine to commit an unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the actions of his associates committed in furtherance or prosecution of a common design. The key is whether the extra criminal act done by one's confederate is in furtherance or prosecution of the initial common criminal design. This is a factual question which must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. 

Facts:

Appellant, George Hampton, accompanied by his brother, Leonard, and one Hillman Arnold arrived at Fred Coles' Store for the purpose of robbing Coles. Hampton, armed with a rifle, positioned himself outside of the store to act as a lookout while Leonard and Hillman entered the store, confronted Coles with a shotgun, and demanded Coles turn over to them the proceeds from the cash register. When Coles pointed to the empty cash drawer and stated that there was no money, Leonard fired the shotgun and wounded Coles, who retaliated with a shot that felled Hillman. Leonard threw the shotgun at Coles and ran out the door, leaving Hillman on the floor. Before escaping with Leonard, Hampton fired a rifle shot through the window into a table near Coles. Hampton was found guilty by a jury of assault with intent to commit robbery and, under a charge of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, guilty of the lesser and included offense of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. By way of this appeal, Hampton complained of the insufficiency of the evidence and the court's imposition of two concurrent sentences for offenses which Hampton insisted arose from the "same criminal transaction."

Issue:

Was the order convicting Hampton of assault with intent to commit robbery and assault with intent to commit second-degree murder proper?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed, finding that the facts of the case clearly indicated that Hampton was a willing participant in a robbery, in which he and his brother both employed and used firearms to accomplish their common mission. The court further found that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury from which they could infer that Hampton knew that his brother might use a shotgun in attempting to accomplish the planned robbery and, in so doing, kill or wound an innocent citizen. In drawing such an inference, it was proper for the jury to conclude that the use of the shotgun by Hampton’s brother was fairly within the common unlawful enterprise and that Hampton was criminally responsible for the use by his confederate of the gun in effectuating the planned robbery.