09 October 2008

In Christopher Gray death, public shows disgust at NH AG Kelly Ayotte for the "contempt the AGs office has for the public and the press."

Here's the Union Leader story about a dead man, Christopher Gray.

I'll go along with suspicious death or suspected homicide.
- Joe, Henniker

"suspected death"? He's dead or he isn't. I understand the AG's office needing to protect some information, but they've begun verging on outright dishonesty. They need to remember who they work for, and that when it comes to public safety their primary obligation is to protecting the public and keeping the public informed.

This kind of nonsense indicates the level of contempt the AGs office has for the public and the press. Shame on Kelly Ayotte for allowing this.
- Tom Silwell, Manchester

I'm glad somebody else said it because if I put anything on the Union Leader they edit it right out, but that is precisely what I would have said, so a hearty KingCast round of thanks to Tom Silwell.

Related post: Disbar Kelly Ayotte
Related Editorial: Killers at large, AG's office silent.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey, Pissy Chrissy, it's been a while since I stopped in to check on your dibarred, disgraced ass. I find it sad that you have no comments whatsoever since I left you. Man, you are a loser after all. I will take my leave and allow you to spend time with yourself.

Christopher King said...

I don't measure my life by the number of comments I receive. My readership has been consistently a couple-hundred a day and I'm cool with that, especially because I'm not some Internet tool who gets inflated hits generated by CIA sites like Daily Kos, yah.

And Markos Moulitsas was/is indeed a CIA operative, yah.

You however seem to measure your life by me, which is hootlarious. That's why all of you circle jerks at Topix dedicated days and days and weeks and months on end talking about me, and the good ol' days when Ohio and NH had me under wraps.

"Since I left you" you write, pining for my man meat no doubt.

I'm spending plenty of time with plenty of cool folks, and my lady, my man.

Time for a movie.

It's All Good.

PS: You're also a liar.

You must have missed the comments on Judge Spencer Kagan and the email from the folks at the Valley Street Jail, and of course you must have missed the entire dialogue about me breaking the DNA Constitutional Violations when the father later interviewed on WMUR telephoned and emailed me first, but then since you're barely literate I guess it's no surprise.

PPS: Gregory W. Floyd still got arraigned today, as I told you he would.

Christopher King said...

And oh, the subject of this post, again, then, is that more people are disgusted with Kelly Ayotte, yah.

Anonymous said...

Which lady would that be? The one with the ass pimples you enjoy popping?

Christopher King said...

Dear Idiot:

I remember the circle jerks like you said the same things when I was going after Officers Rhodes and Hensley, which took 2 full years to get the $58,500.00 for Michael Isreal and 2 more years to get them found liable for making Michael a victim of violent crime, a first in Ohio, and over objection and appeal from my former boss, Bloody Betty Montgomery.

V1996-61481.

As to ass pimples, sorry none in this house.

However, when I was turning your mother out 9 months before you were born I had to lance her butt boils with an ice pick and a damn acetylene torch; sold the blackened puss for road tar base I ride the BMW over every day.

Try again, dude 'cos my grin is bigger'n'yours right now.

And it always will be.

PS: I struck your last comment because it was laced with profanity, as that is all you know how to do. I have explained the profanity limits here and they are ass, jackass and bitch, as in "don't bitch about this or that."

You came in here with your excremental comments and f-bombs so you can stay away until you make some kind of attempt to grow up.

Meanwhile, more people are upset about Kelly Ayotte and her performance.

Christopher King said...

These are the kind of comments I receive in my email hopper, fool:

Chris,

Do you know any of the details of the lawsuit? Being on the

School board I find it interesting?

Sometimes when you have a minute – please give me a call.

Mr. Hottel frequently labels emails to us Confidential! I would

Like to hear your version of the legality of such an email?
Sandra Ziehm

BOE Nashua

******

Ms. Ziehm is also a Senate Candidate, and a much better one than that idiot Martha McLeod, yah.

Anonymous said...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001

CHRISTOPHER KING,
Appellant,
v.
Case No. 5D00-3801
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
/
Opinion filed December 7, 2001
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Marion County,
Jack Singbush, Judge.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and
Marvin F. Clegg, Assistant Public Defender,
Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee,
and Wesley Heidt, Assistant
Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
SAWAYA, J.
Christopher King appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following the return of
a jury verdict finding him guilty of manslaughter, attempted felony murder and attempted
robbery with a firearm. Of the issues King raises, we find the only one that merits discussion
is whether the trial court committed fundamental and reversible error when it gave an
incomplete attempted felony murder instruction to the jury. We reverse King’s conviction for
attempted felony murder and affirm his convictions for manslaughter and attempted robbery
with a firearm.
2
The Facts
Although there are two versions of what happened in the instant case, for purposes of
resolution of the issue before us, the facts are not complicated and recitation of them in detail
is not necessary. The incident that gave rise to the criminal charges against King and his codefendants
was either a drug deal gone awry (King’s version) or it was a robbery from the
start (the State’s version). In any case, suffice it to say that one person was shot and killed
and another was seriously wounded by King’s co-defendants. King was arrested for his part
in the episode and was charged by amended indictment with first degree murder, attempted
felony murder and attempted robbery with a firearm. While he admitted that he had gone to
the house where the shootings occurred in order to sell drugs, King consistently denied
knowing that a robbery was going to take place or that there was a gun present.
King did not object to the jury instruction the trial court gave pertaining to the charge of
attempted felony murder which failed to instruct the jury that they had to find, pursuant to
section 782.051(1), Florida Statutes (1999), that King committed “an intentional act that is not
an essential element of the felony.” The jury returned verdicts of guilty to the lesser charge of
manslaughter, attempted felony murder and attempted robbery with a firearm. King argues
that the trial court’s instruction on attempted felony murder constitutes fundamental error
because, without the quoted language from section 782.051(1), it is incomplete. In order to
decide this issue, we will discuss the contemporaneous objection rule as it applies to
erroneous jury instructions; analyze the particular instruction given in the instant case that King
contends is incomplete and constitutes fundamental error; and apply the pertinent legal
principles to the facts of the instant case.
3
The Contemporaneous Objection Rule Applied To Erroneous Jury Instructions
Errors in jury instructions are subject to the contemporaneous objection rule. State v.
Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991). In Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978), the court
stated the public policy concerns which militate in favor of continuing adherence of the
contemporaneous objection rule in circumstances where an erroneous or incomplete jury
instruction is given:
As a general matter, a reviewing court will not consider points
raised for the first time on appeal. Dorminey v. State, 314 So. 2d
134 (Fla. 1975). Where the alleged error is giving or failing to
give a particular jury instruction, we have invariably required the
assertion of a timely objection. Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30
So. 2d 367 (1947); see Williams v. State, 285 So. 2d 13 (Fla.
1973). The requirement of a contemporaneous objection is
based on practical necessity and basic fairness in the operation
of a judicial system. It places the trial judge on notice that error
may have been committed, and provides him an opportunity to
correct it at an early stage of the proceedings. Delay and an
unnecessary use of the appellate process result from a failure to
cure early that which must be cured eventually.
365 So. 2d at 703. Moreover, the preservation of error requirement “more precisely frames
the issue, arguments, and factual record and thereby facilitates appellate review,” Duhart v.
State, 548 So. 2d 302, 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), and it “prohibits counsel from attempting
to gain a tactical advantage by allowing unknown errors to go undetected and then seeking
a second trial if the first decision is adverse to the client.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376,
1378 (Fla. 1998) (citation omitted).
Thus, if a contemporaneous objection is not made to the erroneous instruction during
trial, appellate review is waived unless the error constitutes fundamental error. Delva; Castor.
Fundamental error has been defined as “error that reaches down into the validity of the trial
1 In Delva, the supreme court stated the general rule and gave some examples of
cases where it has been applied:
Failing to instruct on an element of the crime over which the
record reflects there was no dispute is not fundamental error and
there must be an objection to preserve the issue for appeal.
E.g., Stewart (trial court did not instruct on intent to permanently
deprive as element of robbery, but defendant admitted at trial
that he stole the victim's personal property); Morton v. State, 459
So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (no instruction on elements of
robbery, but facts of robberies conceded with mistaken identity
being the only contested issue), review denied, 467 So. 2d 1000
4
itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance
of the alleged error.” McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999) (quoting Urbin v.
State, 714 So. 2d 411, 418 n.8 (Fla. 1998) (quoting Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895, 898
(Fla. 1996)); see Card v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S670 (Fla. Oct. 11, 2001); Delva, 575 So.
2d at 644-45.
Fundamental error occurs when a trial court fails to instruct a jury on an essential
element of the crime charged. Davis v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2385 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct.
3, 2001); Anderson v. State, 780 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). If the trial court issues an
incomplete or inaccurate jury instruction, fundamental error may occur if the error relates to an
element of the crime. Neal v. State, 783 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Anderson;
Hubbard v. State, 751 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 666 So. 2d 995 (Fla.
5th DCA 1996). However, in order for the error in the instruction to be fundamental, it must
pertain to an element of the crime that is a disputed issue in the case. Duncan v. State, 703
So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 718 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1998); Johnson v; State,
632 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Delva.1
(Fla. 1985); Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA
1981) (same as Morton), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1149, 103 S. Ct.
793, 74 L. Ed. 2d 998 (1983).
575 So. 2d at 645.
5
Once the error is deemed fundamental, it may be reviewed on appeal. In order to
determine whether fundamental error was committed in the instant case, we next analyze the
instruction to determine whether the omission pertains to an element of the crime of attempted
felony murder.
The Erroneous Instruction In The Instant Case
In order to determine whether the jury instruction in the instant case constitutes
fundamental error because it is incomplete, we must refer to section 782.051(1), Florida
Statutes (1999), which provides:
(1) Any person who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate any
felony enumerated in s. 782.04(3) and who commits, aids, or
abets an intentional act that is not an essential element of the
felony and that could, but does not, cause the death of another
commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment
for a term of years not exceeding life, or as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, which is an offense ranked
in level 9 of the Criminal Punishment Code. Victim injury points
shall be scored under this subsection.
(Emphasis added). The underlined portion of the statute was left out of the instruction which
the trial court gave the jury in this case:
Before you can find the defendant guilty of attempted felony
murder, the State must prove the following two elements beyond
a reasonable doubt:
One, Christopher Aaron King was engaged in the perpetration
or attempted perpetration of a robbery.
2The parties obviously turned to the common law elements upon discovering that the
current standard jury instructions do not include an instruction on this offense. The current
standard jury instructions merely note, “The instructions on attempted first- and third- degree
felony murder have been deleted. See State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995).” Fla. Std.
Jury Instr. (Crim.) Attempted Felony Murder.
6
Two, during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a
robbery Christopher Aaron King committed or aided or abetted
in the commission of an intentional act that could have, but did
not cause the death of Anthony Wayne Shirley.
The instruction as given fairly tracked the common law elements of attempted felony
murder as set out in Amlotte v. State, 456 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1984), abrogated by State v. Gray,
654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995). The reliance on the common law elements as a basis for the
instruction was error.2 After the supreme court in Gray found that attempted first degree felony
murder was a nonexistent offense, the Legislature reenacted the offense of attempted felony
murder and included for the first time the phrase “that is not an essential element of the felony.”
See § 782.051, Fla. Stat. (1999). This court has held that this phrase “is a necessary element
of the crime,” and the failure to include this phrase when giving an attempted felony murder
instruction required reversal. Neal. The decision in Neal reveals that the trial court similarly
failed to include the phrase “that is not an essential element of the felony” and this court held
that the instruction as given was incomplete and inaccurate insofar as it failed to track the
statutory language. Thus the case was remanded for a new trial on the attempted felony
murder count. Having determined that the jury instruction failed to include an essential element
of the offense, we must next determine whether that element was an issue in the instant case.
Legal Analysis Of The Law And The Facts
7
In the instant case, the State’s contention is that because there was no dispute
regarding the element which was not included in the instruction, the error in not instructing on
this element is not fundamental. Thus, it concludes, the contemporaneous objection rule bars
review of the issue as King’s attorney did not object to the erroneous instruction. We disagree.
The omitted element was pertinent and crucial to what the jury had to have found in
order to convict King of attempted felony murder. While the State is correct that King’s theory
of defense was that he did not know a robbery was going to occur, the fact remains that the
offense of felony murder requires that the jury find not only that King had attempted the
robbery, but also that King had committed an intentional act apart from one which was an
essential element of the attempted robbery which could have, but did not cause the victim to
die. While it was an accepted fact that the robbery had been attempted and one issue for the
jury was whether King knew about the robbery and participated in it, the jury still had to find that
King committed (or aided and abetted) an intentional act apart therefrom which could have
caused the victim’s death. They were not so instructed. Accordingly, we conclude that a
contemporaneous objection to preserve the issue for appellate review was not necessary
because the error in the instruction is fundamental requiring reversal of King’s conviction for
attempted felony murder.
Conclusion
We conclude that fundamental reversible error occurred when the trial court failed to
instruct the jury on one of the elements of the offense of attempted felony murder. We,
therefore, reverse King’s conviction for attempted felony murder and remand for a new trial
8
on that charge. We affirm King’s convictions for manslaughter and attempted robbery with a
firearm.
REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.
THOMPSON, C.J., and ORFINGER, R. B., J., concur.

Christopher King said...

7:06

WTF does that have to do with this post?

Anonymous said...

7:04 PM

Too funny......and to think you consider yourself an intelligent person but yet you are a "loser after all".

Back under the bridge you troll !

Make no mistake about it. We remain united and strong !

Mr. King has more supporters then you could ever count.

If it makes you so "sad" to be here on this site I suggest you remain with the "troll patrol".

Last but not least, what have you done to make the world a better place ?

You my friend do not have the integrity, courage or strength to do what Chris has done.

Your insecurities are clear to all who read your childish comment(s).

KOKO Chris !

Anonymous said...

I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

At least we know you can "think".

KingCaster said...

6:20

It's All Good.

See you Thursday at Floyd's hearing to impose the suspended sentence.

-The KingCaster

Anonymous said...

KingCaster said...
6:20

It's All Good.

See you Thursday at Floyd's hearing to impose the suspended sentence.

-The KingCaster

another of your erroneous predicitions in the ever growing list.

Christopher King said...

5:42

Where's the erroneous prediction?

My post read:

"Well nothing is a lead pipe cinch. You know ten years ago we thought it was a lead pipe cinch that the U.S. Attorney's Office was going to issue an edict on whether or not to indict Gregory W. Floyd under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) but alas NOTHING ever appeared on the record as to any of that. Read the docket sheet."

So there's no prediction there.

If you're talking about the prediction that I would see you wankers there, yah I guess I was wrong about that.

Sorry.

Christopher King said...

PS:

The full hearing on imposition of the suspended sentence is set for 15 Dec. 2008, and I predict it will be postponed, but then again you never know.

Anonymous said...

5:42,

Why come back to re-iterate your opinion or twisted perceptions? Must be you are cranky over something in your own life and using this site to vent it. Focus. focus, focus on your own life! Find a little happiness.

petrenkov said...

It is rather interesting for me to read this post. Thanks the author for it. I like such themes and everything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more soon.

Sincerely yours
Timm Clade