people, including this guy, there was no ill will or hatred found in that case either. and, again, they mention in that case particularly and also cite a number of cases standing for the proposition that you really ill will and hatred almost always and only comes from people who know each other before the event begins because it is almost impossible for that ill will and hatred to grow so quickly in the middle of an afray or a fight or an altercation such as we have here. wylie versus state 60, southern 3rd, 588. interesting case because in that case there was a fight and wylie decided to take out his gun and smack it against the eventual victim. so it was a deadly weapon, but
case in the florida supreme court in 1991 and i m sorry, your honor. and that s sigler, 805, southern 2nd, 32. i mentioned those two cases for this reason. those were the high-speed chase cases. factually different from this case but interesting because in both of those cases the defendant, one, had just escaped from prison. another one had stolen a car, i believe. they were high-speed chases, 80, 90 miles an hour, running through intersections, running over curbs, running through toll booths and just acting about as outrageously as you could act while in a vehicle. and in both of those cases the courts said that even when you run into somebody and kill them, that s not ill will, spite and
against concrete at least several times. that type of injury in and of itself, the way it was presented by my client, that injury and the ongoing nature of that injury supports the right my client under 776 to reasonably believe that he s in fear of future bodily injury because it was ongoing. the state s own witness, captain carter, said one really good indication of future bodily injury is when you ve already been injured. and it s still ongoing. you can presume that it s going to continue to occur. and that is, in effect, why my client acted in self-defense. and there is something, most importantly, under walker, there is absolutely no interpretation of the state s evidence which excludes that as a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. and if you read walker, the very words that i said, the whole case is quite instructive. it allows for no other