Call us now:
The dangers of social media and constant recording affect our lives every minute. It is so universal that people sometimes forget that when they make videos, put out social media, or even make music videos, what they make can come back to haunt them. That’s exactly what happened here, in the context of making a rap music video.
In Barnes v. State, a Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction of Davonte Barnes for his role in the 2021 El Mula Banquet Hall shooting, addressing two pivotal evidentiary and procedural issues: the admission of a rap video as evidence and the denial of an “Independent Act” jury instruction.
Admitting Rap Videos Under the Florida Evidence Code
The admission of evidence in Florida is governed primarily by Chapter 90 of the Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Evidence Code. Under § 90.401, evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a material fact. However, § 90.403 provides that relevant evidence “is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
In Barnes, the defense objected to the admission of the music video “Mr. Pull Up,” arguing that it portrayed the defendant in a prejudicial light and glorified violence. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the video’s probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. The court cited White v. State, 817 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2002), confirming that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Florida courts have consistently allowed the admission of rap lyrics or videos when they directly relate to the crimes charged or the defendant’s motive and intent. For example, in Wright v. State, 199 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), the defendant’s rap videos were deemed admissible because they “were relevant to the commission of the crime.” Similarly, Hayes v. State, 338 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), upheld the admission of rap lyrics where “the shooting was a continuation and consequence of preceding violent and retaliatory events.”
The Barnes court also found guidance in United States v. Sims, 11 F.4th 315 (5th Cir. 2021), which approved admission of explicit rap videos because the lyrics described events closely tied to the crimes charged. Conversely, the court distinguished United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480 (11th Cir. 2011), where admission of a generic rap video promoting violence was deemed error due to its limited relevance.
Applying these principles, the court in Barnes determined that “Mr. Pull Up” was relevant to show the defendant’s knowledge of the ongoing feud and intent to act as lookout during the El Mula attack. Because the video contradicted his police statement denying awareness of violent plans, its probative value was substantial.
The “Independent Act” Jury Instruction
Barnes also argued that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the “Independent Act” defense, codified in Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(l). This doctrine applies when, after joining a common criminal plan, one participant commits an act that was not contemplated by the others—thus severing their shared liability.
The court reaffirmed the definition articulated in Gary v. State, 330 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), quoting Barfield v. State, 762 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000): the doctrine covers situations where “one of the [participants] embarks on acts not contemplated by the other defendants or participants in the crime.”
However, to merit the instruction, there must be some evidence that the defendant planned to commit a lesser crime and that a codefendant unexpectedly committed a greater one. See Williams v. State, 34 So. 3d 768, 770–71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010): a defendant is entitled to an instruction on any legally recognized defense “if there is any evidence to support it.”
The court held that the record contained no such evidence. Barnes either knowingly assisted in a planned shooting or acted without knowledge of any criminal intent. Neither scenario fit the Independent Act framework, which presupposes a shared plan for a lesser offense that escalates unpredictably. Consequently, the trial court properly denied the instruction.
Harmless Error Doctrine
Even if the video’s admission had been error, the appellate court found it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given Barnes’s confession. Under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), the test for harmless error asks whether there is “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” Here, Barnes admitted to knowing that Young Savage intended to “hit up El Mula” and to serving as lookout, providing overwhelming evidence of guilt independent of the video.
Implications for Florida
Be careful with rap videos. Florida courts will admit creative or artistic expressions such as rap videos when they bear direct relevance to motive, knowledge, or intent. Defense attorneys should be prepared to challenge such evidence under § 90.403 by emphasizing lack of direct connection or high prejudicial potential. Just because it was allowed here doesn’t mean rap videos or artistic depictions will always be admitted by a judge against you in a trial.
In an era where music, social media, and digital imagery often intersect with criminal prosecutions, the Barnes opinion serves as a critical reminder: authenticity and context matter—both in art and in evidence.
Key Authorities Cited:
- United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010)
- § 90.401, § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2024)
- White v. State, 817 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2002)
- Wright v. State, 199 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Hayes v. State, 338 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
- Gary v. State, 330 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
- Barfield v. State, 762 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Williams v. State, 34 So. 3d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480 (11th Cir. 2011)
- United States v. Sims, 11 F.4th 315 (5th Cir. 2021)
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Ocala, Alachua County, Bradford County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.