This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

See RODRIGUEZ V. STATE 571 So. 2d 1356 (1990) for the base facts of the case. At the first trial D's entire defense to the felony murder charge was that the murder was an independent act on the part of Ballester and not committed in the course of or in furtherance of the attempted robbery. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial court instructed the jury on D's liability for the lethal acts of his co-felon: “If you find that the killing of Alain Dubrose was an independent act on the part of Ballester and was not committed during the course of and in furtherance of the crime of attempted robbery, then you must find D guilty of murder in the first degree. During the course of attempted robbery means that the act occurred prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the attempted robbery and that the act and attempted robbery constitute a continuous series of events.” D was once again found guilty and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.