Green v. State
| Citation | 93 Fla. 1076,113 So. 121 |
| Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1927 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; C. E. Chillingworth, Judge.
Noah Green was convicted of first degree murder, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
On trial for first degree murder, jury may recommend defendant to mercy, where evidence is sufficient to support charge. Upon the trial of a person charged with murder in the first degree, it is within the jury's discretion to recommend the defendant to mercy when the evidence is sufficient to support the charge.
If reasonable men may differ as to verdict on conflicting evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Where the evidence in a criminal case, although conflicting as to the defendant's guilt, is such that reasonable men may differ as to its probative force or the conclusion to be drawn from it, the appellate court will not disturb the verdict, where there is ample evidence to sustain it.
Ample time for accused's mind to become fully conscious of design to kill, as shown by evidence, will be deemed sufficient to enable him to form premeditated design to kill. Where the evidence is sufficient to show that the accused had ample time to form a purpose to kill the deceased, and for the mind of the killer to become fully conscious of its own design, it will be deemed sufficient in point of time in which to enable the killer to form a premeditated design to kill.
Statement by party or witness shortly after shooting, in form of narrative, is not admissible as res gestae, however favorable to accused; statement by deceased after being shot, in form of narrative, held not admissible as res gestae. If a person who was a party or a witness to a transaction makes at, or shortly after the incident, a statement in the form of a narrative of a past event, although relating to the transaction, such statement is not considered a part of the res gestae and admissible as evidence.
Statement to be admissible as dying declaration, should be made in presence of impending death, with no hope of recovery statement by deceased after being shot, failing to show belief of impending death, held not admissible as dying statement in behalf of accused. The statement of a deceased person, to be admissible in evidence as a dying declaration should be made in the presence of impending death, with no hope of recovery on the part of the person speaking.
Evidence held to support conviction of first degree murder. Evidence examined and found sufficient to support the verdict of murder in the first degree.
Farrington & Lockhart, of Ft. Lauderdale, for plaintiff in error.
J. B. Johnson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Noah Green was convicted of the murder in the first degree of Asbury Goolsby. The jury recommended Green to the mercy of the court, so he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He seeks to reverse the judgment on writ of error.
The transcript of the record is made up under the new rules primarily intended for use in civil cases, but which are permitted to be used in criminal cases. The record contained no copy of the indictment, but, upon motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error, a copy of the indictment was certified to this court.
All the assignments of error rest upon matters properly exhibited by the bill of exceptions. The points presented were embraced in a motion for a new trial, which was overruled.
The bill of exceptions was presented and signed apparently upon the last day allowed by the court for the making up and settling of same.
The first error assigned and discussed is that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
The evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. The circumstances of the transaction, as shown by the bill of exceptions, not only justified the conclusion reached by the jury, but were of such nature that twelve men of reasonable intelligence, acting as jurors, could not very well have conscientiously arrived at any other conclusion than that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree. The recommendation to mercy was the jury's privilege. See McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 66, 36 So. 175; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 So. 536; Adams v. State, 56 Fla. 1, 48 So. 219; McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485; Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279; Barker v. State, 74 Fla. 95, 76 So. 676.
It is contended that the evidence failed to establish a premeditated design on the part of the defendant to kill the deceased; that the transaction occurred upon a sudden encounter, and in the heat of passion.
We do not agree with counsel. The evidence was ample to sustain the jury's conclusion that the act of the defendant proceeded from a premeditated design to take the life of the deceased without any reasonable ground to believe that he (the defendant) was in danger of bodily harm from the deceased.
A discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose, but it may just as well be said here that, aside from the testimony of the witnesses for the state, the account of the transaction given by the defendant's witnesses is quite sufficient. The defendant's testimony tends to show that he conceived his right to kill the deceased as established when some one, unknown to the defendant, but whom he afterwards...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deparvine v. State
...code cases that a narrative of past events cannot qualify as spontaneous statements or excited utterances. See, e.g., Green v. State, 93 Fla. 1076, 113 So. 121, 123 (1927); Mariano v. State, 933 So.2d 111, 116-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Charlot v. State, 679 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA In Dep......
-
Custer v. State
... ... the requirements of the controlling statutes.' ... We think ... that it is not necessary to go beyond this jurisdiction for ... authority but to like effect is Clinton et al. v ... Englebrecht, 13 Wall., U.S., 434, 20 L.Ed. 659, and ... Green v. State, 59 Md. 123, 43 Am.Rep. 542 ... The ... statutes, Sec. 40.14 to 40.18, inclusive, Fla. Statutes of ... 1941, same F.S.A., mandatorily provide how and when names may ... be drawn or taken from the jury box ... In the ... case of Slayton v. State, supra, we held that ... ...
-
Buford v. State
...it will be deemed sufficient in point of time in which to enable the killer to form a premeditated design to kill. Green v. State, 93 Fla. 1076, 113 So. 121, 122 (1927). Where a person strikes another with a deadly weapon and inflicts a mortal wound, the very act of striking such person wit......
-
Williams v. State, 6586
...I.L.R. 80; 2 Kansas Law Review 41, 121, 246. And our own Florida Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Ellis, in Green v. State, 93 Fla. 1076, 113 So. 121, refers deprecatingly to res gestae as 'whatever may be meant by that term, invented, so it has been said, because of its conven......