Daniels v. State

• Decision Date: 04 February 1959
• Citation: 108 So.2d 755
• Parties: E. C. DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 755

108 So.2d 755

E. C. DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1959.

Ferguson & J. Popling, Lake City, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Odis M. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

O'CONNELL, Justice.

E. C. Daniels was tried on an indictment for the premeditated murder of Clara Mae Ward. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. By vote of six to six the jury declined to make a recommendation of mercy. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied by the court and he thereupon appealed.

Defendant does not contend he was guiltless or that the killing was necessary, justifiable or excusable. His principal argument is that the evidence was insufficient to show a premeditated design to effect the death of Clara Mae Ward. He also contends that the court erred in refusing to give to the jury a certain charge requested by the defendant.

Defendant and the deceased, Clara Mae Ward, Negroes, had been going together for several months. On the night of the homicide the parties were on a date. Between 10:00 P.M. of March 1 and 1:00 A.M. of March 2, 1957, they visited several eating and drinking establishments in Lake City, Florida. At one place they consumed about two quarts of beer. They progressed to another place where they obtained fish sandwiches, took them with them in defendant's pick-up truck, parked, consumed about a half pint of whiskey and ate the sandwiches. They then went to another place, known as 'Wilson's Place', where they purchased a quart of beer, but only drank about half of it. About 1:00 A.M. they left Wilson's Place in defendant's truck.

Defendant and the victim were the only eye witnesses to the fight which resulted in the homicide here involved. One witness, however, testified that he heard the fight.

Defendant testified at the trial. He stated that when he and the victim left Wilson's Place they were both intoxicated. They got in his truck and drove out the road toward his farm. She appeared drowsy but suddenly, when they were a short distance out of Lake City, roused and wanted to fight. Defendant continued driving until she slapped him across the eyes. He stopped the truck and the fight ensued around the truck, during which she tore his shirt and bit his thumb. Defendant then picked up a jack handle out of the back of the truck and swung it at her thighs to keep her away from him. He struck her with it several times, 'low down'. Finally, he shoved her away from him. As she fell, her head struck the truck. After falling she did not move; she was breathing but was limp.

Defendant stated he then tried to put her in the cab of the truck, but could not. He put her in the rear of the truck and decided to ride her around a bit, thinking the air would revive her. He stopped once or twice and attempted to revive her but then discovered she had ceased breathing. He then became panicky, fearing what both her family and the authorities might think. He drove further out into the country to the spot where her body was subsequently found. Once again he attempted to revive her and failing to do so drove off, leaving her behind

The body of the victim was not discovered for some 12 days. In the interim the defendant had been taken into custody on suspicion and confined to the County Jail.

When the body was discovered, the defendant notified the Sheriff of the County that he wished to tell what had happened. At the trial the oral admissions made by the defendant to the Sheriff, in the presence of a deputy sheriff, were admitted in evidence without objection. Omitting the preliminaries, the Sheriff related that defendant told him that as they drove out of Lake City defendant

'* * * Noticed Clara Mae had something in her hand, and he turned off in the dirt road and he grabbed the jack handle and went to beating her and when he realized what he was doing, she was down, and he examined her and he didn't think she was alive, then he picked her up and put her in the back of the truck. * * *'

The Sheriff further testified that the defendant had stated that he had had a drink or two and lost his head, that he did not intend to kill the victim.

Charlie Whitfield, an ear witness to the incident, testified that he lived near the country road on which the fight here involved occurred, his house being about 100 feet from the road; that he was awakened the night of the killing, sometime between midnight and day, by a woman's screams; and that he went out on his porch and recognized defendant's truck stopped on the road in front of his house. Whitfield stated he did not see the fight but heard a woman yell 'he's going to kill me' and heard several blows being struck; that the woman continued to 'holler for help' for some fifteen or twenty minutes; and that the licks continued 'a time or two' after the yelling stopped, whereupon the truck drove off and he returned to bed. He also testified that several hours later he saw the defendant return to the same scene in front of his house in his truck, stop and pick up a hat.

Another witness, James Davis, testified that he walked down the road past Charlie Whitfield's house between 8 and 9 A.M. of the morning following the fight and that he saw

'* * * blood in the road and the jack handle with blood on it, * * * and seen where someone was drugged (dragged) across the road. * * *'

On cross-examination this witness testified that the 'drag mark' extended across the road, from one ditch to the other. The jack handle was introduced in evidence as was a lipstick, later found at the scene, and identified as belonging to the

As above stated the victim's body was not discovered until some 12 days after the fight. The body had suffered disfigurations of the fleshy parts. The State concedes that at least some of these disfigurations were caused by birds and beasts of the field. Nevertheless, the State contends that certain of the wounds and fractures found in and on the body were inflicted by the bludgeoning attack of the defendant.

As described by the medical doctor who performed an autopsy on the body, the lacerations, wounds and fractures were:

'* * * there was a laceration, a cut, a half inch long behind where the ear had been located on the left, (the left ear was missing) there was a bruise of the neck, slightly to the left near where the skull fastens to the neck, there was a two-inch cut on the left scalp, above where the left ear would have been located, and slightly forward there was a three-inch cut.'

'* * * there was a one-inch cut at the back of the skull, there was contusion of the right jaw, laceration of the right jaw, laceration of the left cheek, eye, the finger bones of the left hand, the second one to the index finger, the fourth and fifth one were broken, or fractured, there were bruises and contusions, abrasions and contusions of the backs of both hands, across the knuckles, there were abrasions of the right thigh, there was a two inch long lacertion of the left foot, the inner arch area, the fleshy parts of the left thigh were mainly absent, there being some contusions, there was a chipped fracture of the left shin bone, the tibea to the outer side, with a laceration of the calf of the left leg in that same region * * * there was a fracture of the first and second neck bones, the first and second cervical vertabrae with compression of the spinal cord at that area. * * *'

The doctor testified that the cause of death was 'a high fracture of the neck with compression of the cord', i. e. a broken neck. He stated that the broken neck would cause immediate death.

The State surmises that defendant first rendered his victim helpless by beating her and then when she tried to flee struck the fatal blow or blows at the base of her skull.

Defendant admits, for the sake of argument, that he may have used more force than was reasonably necessary to fight off the attacks of his victim, but even so he says all of the State's evidence, when considered with his undisputed version of the events, does not exclude the hypothesis that the victim was killed in a sudden drunken fight, without premeditation. He argues that the jury apparently ignored his version of the killing, but they should not have done so since there was no other evidence legally sufficient to contradict it. Mayo v. State, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 899; Jenkins v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 26, 161 So. 840.

Defendant concedes that intent may be established by circumstantial evidence, but says that in this case the evidence is not sufficient.

He argues that his prior good relationship with the deceased, their intoxication, lack of motive and his good character as testified to at the trial, all refute the existence of premeditation.

Defendant cites in support of his position three cases in which he says this Court prevented the defendants from paying the supreme penalty because of lack of proof of premeditation. Douglas v. State, 1942, 152 Fla. 63, 10 So.2d 731...