Coachman v. State, B-147
| Decision Date | 11 August 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. B-147,B-147 |
| Parties | Edwin W. COACHMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Causey S. Green, Palatka, Scruggs, Carmichael & Avera, Gainesville, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Edward S. Jaffry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On December 9, 1958, defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree. Upon denial of his motion for new trial he was adjudged guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. It is from this judgment and sentence that appeal is taken.
Plaintiff makes two principal points on appeal. He urges that the testimony of the State's witnesses is so conflicting on the material elements of the offense charged that it cannot be said that defendant's guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. He fervently asserts that the State's failure to remove from the victim's body the bullet which caused her death, and prove by expert ballistic evidence that this bullet was fired from defendant's gun, prejudiced him in his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Edwin W. Coachman, the defendant, and Berdell Coachman, his deceased wife, experienced domestic difficulties, and on at least three occasions had separated, the wife and her two small children returning to the home of her mother and step-father. During the period of the last separation defendant was accustomed to stopping by his in-law's home and visiting with his wife and children.
On June 2, 1958, defendant visited his children in the usual manner. His wife came to the passenger side of his automobile which was closest to her home, and engaged in conversation with him. The visit concluded and as the wife walked toward the house she told defendant to 'go to the devil'. Defendant reached in the glove compartment of his car, procured a 32-caliber revolver and commenced to fire in the direction of the wife. She fell to the sidewalk, and after firing additional shots toward the home of deceased's parents, defendant drove directly to the Sheriff's office where he voluntarily surrendered himself, stating 'I just shot my wife.'
In the course of the trial, the State produced five eyewitnesses who testified to defendant's shooting spree. Some of these testified that he shot the deceased from his car, while others testified he also shot her while standing over her fallen body. Although it is apparent from examining the testimony of these witnesses that there is some conflict in their recollections of certain details concerning the shooting incident, a careful review of the record reveals that the conflicts relate to immaterial phases of the res gestae and not to the material elements of the offense. It is not disputed that defendant called upon his wife with a 32-caliber revolver in the glove compartment of his auto, loaded and readily available. Nor is it controverted that with this gun he fired several times in the direction of his wife, at least one of the bullets from which entered her body.
An examination of the deceased's body showed that two bullets struck her. One entered through the back and lodged in the heart cavity. The fatal bullet which caused her death entered the right temple and lodged near the back of the skull. The bullet in the heart cavity was removed and a ballistics test conclusively proved that this bullet had been fired by defendant's gun. The bullet in the skull was never removed.
It is the theory of the defense that the step-father, who appeared at the front door of his house just as the deceased started walking away from defendant's automobile, fired at defendant who, in self-defense, returned the fire while seated in his car. The wife, who was in the direct line of fire, was accidentally hit in the back by defendant's bullet and in the head by the fatal shot from the step-father's gun.
All the State's witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roby
...200; Davis v. State, Fla., 90 So.2d 629. The authorities cited by respondent, including Land v. State, Fla., 156 So.2d 8; Coachman v. State, Fla.App., 114 So.2d 189; Hopper v. State, Fla., 54 So.2d 165; Tongay v. State, Fla., 79 So.2d 673; and Bellamy v. State, 56 Fla. 43, 47 So. 868, are d......
-
State ex rel. Boyd v. Green
...Criminal responsibility results when each element of the crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Coachman v. State, 114 So.2d 189 (Fla.App.1959), Kilbee v. State, 53 So.2d 533 (Fla.1951). Only then is the State authorized to exercise its power to impose certain specifi......
-
Meshell v. State, 56,726
...1635, 12 L.Ed.2d 503 (1964); Hopper v. State, 54 So.2d 165 (Fla.1951); Penton v. State, 114 So.2d 381 (Fla.App.1959); Coachman v. State, 114 So.2d 189 (Fla.App.1959). In Mississippi the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution in a criminal case. Pittman v. State, 297 So.2d 888, 89......
-
Talbert v. State, 49736
...1635, 12 L.Ed.2d 503 (1964); Hopper v. State, 54 So.2d 165 (Fla.1951); Penton v. State, 114 So.2d 381 (Fla.App.1959); Coachman v. State, 114 So.2d 189 (Fla.App.1959). In Mississippi the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution in a criminal case. Pittman v. State, 297 So.2d 888, 89......