Criminal Defense Trial Expert’s View of “Principal Statute” in Florida

June 27, 2024 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

It’s big and nasty like a Fujita 5 Tornado – everyone gets sucked into the vortex of destruction in the form of the most serious possible charge. 

The “Principal Statute,” Florida Statutes Section 777.011, pulls everyone (who aids, counsels, abets, hires, procures) in like a tornado and makes them as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger in a murder. In other words, the statute makes the lookout or getaway driver just as guilty as the person who shot and killed the bank teller. 

Florida Statutes Section 777.011 is the “Big Nasty” of the nastiest Florida Statutes. When I say “Big Nasty,” I mean it sucks everyone into the crime in a “big” way, like a Fujita 5 Tornado (FPP Scale). Total destruction. It’s bad. Really bad. “Actual perpetrators” and aiders and abettors are treated the same under the statute, regardless of their roles in the offense – they are all principals in the first degree. Connolly v. State, App. 3 Dist., 172 So.3d 893 (2015).  

In Florida, anybody who aids, abets, counsels, hires, or otherwise procures an offense to be committed, and the offense is committed or is attempted to be committed, is a principal in the first degree and may be charged, convicted, and punished as such. This is the case whether he or she is or is not actually or constructively present during the commission of the offense. In the immortal words of Dave Chappelle playing the role of Rick James as he strikes Charlie Murphy in the head – it is “cold blooded.” 

The “principal statute” can also extend to those who own – or are passengers in – a vehicle while another is driving that vehicle and commits a crime. In Michel v. State (2000), the defendant – who was owner of and passenger in the vehicle – could be convicted as a principal to vehicular homicide even though he was not driving the truck when the accident occurred. The driver had procured the defendant’s aid in driving the vehicle while the defendant sat in the passenger seat. Prior to the homicide, the vehicle was being driven too slowly at night – without tail lights or brake lights on – and hours earlier the defendant was given a ticket and warning not to drive on highway at night until vehicle was fixed. 

Below, we will discuss how Florida’s courts have applied the big and nasty Section 777.011, otherwise known as the “principal statute.”

How Do Florida Courts Apply The Principle Statute?

Since the enactment of Florida Statutes Section 777.011, courts have applied the law in various cases. As noted above, if an individual materially participates or involves themselves in any crime in Florida – no matter how serious – they can face the same charges as the “principal” who actually committed the offense.

The roots of 777.011 can be traced back to cases such as Pinkerton v. U.S., a 1946 Supreme Court case. That case held that when there is a conspiracy to commit a crime involving two or more persons, in furtherance of a particular shared objective, individuals who have involved themselves in the conspiracy by any “overt act” are liable for the criminal actions of their co-conspirators (principals), even if they did not directly participate in them. This applies so long as the action taken by the co-conspirator is a “foreseeable” consequence of the conspiracy.

An example of this would be if an individual agrees to drive his two friends to a bank, knowing they intend to rob it. If in the course of that robbery, one of the robbers fatally shoots someone inside while attempting to abscond with the money, all three of the individuals who are part of the conspiracy can be charged with the murder under Florida Statutes Section 777.011. That includes the getaway driver – as they have “aided” or “abetted” the commission of the offense under the statute.

The real-world application of Section 777.011 is frequent, as there are various cases that have been heard by Florida courts involving who counts as a “principal” in committing offenses.

One such case similar to the example described above is Hough v. State, 448 So.2d 628 (Fla 5th DCA 1984). While the 5th District Court of Appeals was primarily concerned with sentencing the defendant in the case, it affirmed a lower court’s finding that just one of the robbers carrying a gun while the offense was occurring was enough to sustain an armed robbery charge for all the defendants accused of the offense. Though the defendant in this case argued it was unclear which of the robbers had the gun, the court held that it didn’t matter due to the “principal statute.”

“There was sufficient evidence presented at trial to find appellant guilty of the crime charged because, despite a dispute in the evidence as to which of the three participants actually had possession of the single gun employed in the robbery, if any one of them carried the firearm during the commission of the crime, all of them are guilty as principals under section 777.011.” Hough v. State, 448 So.2d 628 at 629.

The degree to which one can be considered a principle is striking, and evolving. In 2021, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal decided Williams v. State, in which it was held that communications can serve as the basis for finding someone to be a principal – and thus qualify for charges under 777.011. In Williams, one person schemed with another to commit a murder. Even though one was entirely uninvolved in the act and took no action other than speaking about it to the other person to plan how it would occur, the court acknowledged this was enough.

“With all of this in mind … focus on distinguishing between acts and words is misplaced. Words alone could constitute criminal conduct within the terms of the statute. Words can be used to encourage, incite, procure, and even assist.” Williams v. State, 314 So.3d 775 (Fla 1st DCA 2021)

Continuing the trend of taking a more expansive view towards Section 777.011 is another major Florida case, Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893 (Fla 3rd DCA 2015). In Connolly, the court ruled that under the “principal statute,” actual perpetrators and aiders and abettors are treated the same in terms of liability. Regardless of their roles in the offense, they are all principals in the first degree.

“It now no longer matters whether the defendant hired (procured) a hit man, turned to his mob friends to murder Callahan, served as a lookout, provided the gun, or pulled the trigger himself, he is a principal in the first degree.” Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893 (Fla 3rd DCA 2015).

The decision also noted that a defendant does not need to be present at the scene of the actual crime to be considered a principal under 777.011 – they only need to have aided, abetted, or procured its commission.

“Under Florida law, those who actually commit the offense and those who aid, abet, or procure the commission of an offense are treated the same regardless of their role in the commission of the offense or whether they are present at the scene during the final acts of the offense.” Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893 (Fla 3rd DCA 2015).

And since 1948, Florida courts have acknowledged that even individuals who provide assistance to a party who then acts as a principal in the crime can be held criminally liable for a felony. Lee v. Tucker, 160 Fla. 962, 37 So.2d 582 (1948).

“It is a fundamental principle of law that he who procures a felony to be committed is himself a felon, though the criminal act done is by the intervention of a third person.” Lee v. Tucker, 160 Fla. 962, 37 So.2d 582 (1948).

A clear example of this would be someone paying another person to hire a hitman to kill someone. And under Williams, someone who even plans with another person to pay a hitman – even if only that other person actually pays them – is still liable as a principal.

Given this nasty, far-reaching statute, it may be easy to lose hope if you are charged. But don’t give up. Don Pumphrey, Jr. is an experienced and aggressive Tallahassee criminal defense attorney with almost 25 years of experience fighting tirelessly for clients in Florida. (850) 681-7777

Don Pumphrey, Jr. has been qualified, accepted as an expert, and testified as an expert in the area of Criminal Defense Trial Work (State v. David Lee Green, Case No: 00-CF-016798, Hillsborough County, January 5th, 2011, Tampa, Florida; Honorable Susan Lee Sexton, Circuit Judge). 

Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for almost 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. has been qualified, accepted as an expert, and testified as an expert in the area of Criminal Defense Trial Work in Florida (State v. David Lee Green, Case No: 00-CF-016798, Hillsborough County, January 5th, 2011, Tampa, Florida; Honorable Susan Lee Sexton, Circuit Judge). 

Find a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Tallahassee, FL

As a former prosecutor, former state police officer and a life member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Don Pumphrey Jr. has observed that being arrested anywhere in Florida can be extremely stressful. Being charged and “formally charged” by information in Tallahassee or Leon County, Wakulla County, Jefferson County, Gadsden County, Quincy, Crawfordville, Florida State University, Florida State University Campus, Florida State University Student Code of Conduct, Tallahassee Community College, Florida A&M University, or facing first appearance in Leon County, can be life changing. Given the possibility of a lengthy jail or in some cases lengthy prison sentence and hefty financial penalties, it is important to contact an aggressive, trusted and experienced Tallahassee criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the attorneys at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

e you with a free consultation.

  Social Share