Golden v. State, B-119
| Decision Date | 10 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. B-119,B-119 |
| Citation | 120 So.2d 651 |
| Parties | Edward McNaughton GOLDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Forsyth Caro, Pensacola, Curtis Golden, Milton, and Jones & Harrell, Pensacola, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged in two counts of an information with the offenses of assault with intent to commit murder on one Pearce Jernigan, and with having wantonly and maliciously shot a pistol at and into a dwelling house owned and occupied by Pearce Jernigan. Upon conviction by a jury on both counts of the information, appellant was adjudged to be guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.
It is contended on appeal that the court erred in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict on count two of the information at the close of all the evidence. It is asserted that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment on this count of the information.
The violation alleged in count two of the information is based upon the statute which provides that whoever wantonly or maliciously shoots at or into any dwelling or other house which is being used or occupied shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison. 1
The facts and circumstances out of which the charges against appellant arose may be briefly summarized as follows. Appellant was seated in his automobile just outside the Pearce Jernigan home when a bitter and heated controversy arose between him, Pearce Jernigan and Jernigan's wife. Two deputy sheriffs arrived on the scene in response to a call by Jernigan's son. After an exchange of words between appellant and the deputies, appellant shot and killed one of the deputies and wounded the other. Pearce Jernigan who was standing in the yard of the home while the foregoing shooting transpired, ran into his house with appellant in hot pursuit. Appellant fired his pistol at Jernigan several times both before entering the house and after arriving inside it. Several of the spent bullets from appellant's gun were found lodged in both the exterior and interior woodwork of the home, one of which bullets had struck and injured Jernigan during his flight for safety.
The statute now under consideration make it a criminal offense for anyone to maliciously or wantonly shoot at or into any dwelling or other house. The intent of the statute is obvious. It was enacted for the purpose of preserving the life and safety of anyone occupying a dwelling or other house, and to punish anyone who maliciously or wantonly shoots at or into such an occupied dwelling or house. The gravamen of the offense is the wanton or malicious shooting at or into a house. Although the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State
...done so. 2 Appellant also contends the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction based on the holding in Golden v. State, 120 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), a case which seems to require that, for a conviction under Section 790.19, the party throwing the object must have inte......
-
State v. Kettell
...first began to use the phrase, "shooting at or into a building per se." A district court first used the phrase in Golden v. State, 120 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). In that case, the defendant, while shooting at the victim, chased him into the victim's home. One bullet struck the victim, b......
-
Smith v. State
...dwelling, because the evidence showed that he shot at the victim's dog, not at the dwelling itself. He relies on Golden v. State, 120 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960) as support for his position. Because the statute has been amended since the Golden decision so that it now proscribes shooting ......
-
Skinner v. State, 65510
...because of direct and express conflict between the case here, Skinner v. State, 450 So.2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and Golden v. State, 120 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Since that time the First District Court of Appeal has receded from Golden and expressly adopted the reasoning of the ca......