of ownership ... [was] legally sufficient because a manager always has lawful control over the premises superior to that of the burglar.” Id. The Supreme Court cited Smith with approval and drew a distinction between the manager of a business and an employee: The uncontradicted testimony established that [the manager] ran the store; ... that he was in charge; and that he was more than merely an employee or servant. Id. (emphasis added). The italicized language demonstrates that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding in Smith and maintained a distinction between a manager and an employee. Unlike the manager who exercises lawful control over premises, a servant or employee occupies the space but does not control it. See also Adirim v. State, 350 So.2d 1082, 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court did not alter the holding
holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding that where the dying victim remained conscious for fifteen minutes the evidence was sufficient to show that the victim knew that he was dying but was helpless to prevent it holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind holding that where state alleged that burglarized structure was property of victim the branch manager of the firm that owned the property the victim had a sufficient possessory interest to support burglary charge where he was more than a mere employee but was the individual responsible for custody of the stolen items