Holston v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 35856,35856 |
| Citation | 208 So.2d 98 |
| Parties | Leon Corneal HOLSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
W. George Allen, Fort Lauderadale, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Leon Corneal Holston, was convicted of murder in the first degree of Julian Marion Foxworth, an 11-year old boy, without recommendation of mercy and was sentenced to death. The case is now here for review. The victim had been stabbed several times and had been 'buggered' according to the doctor who performed the autopsy. The testimony was positive that the cause of death was hemorrhaging and shock from multiple stab wounds in the chest of the victim.
There is abundant evidence that the young victim of Holston's assault had been violated then killed by Holston, so the element of premeditation was firmly established.
The question of appellant's sanity was raised by his pleas and the subject was thoroughly explored during the trial at which well qualified witnesses testified that the appellant, under the M'Naghten rule, knew the difference between right and wrong at the time the crime was committed and, of course, this view was accepted by the jury as is demonstrated by their verdict. True, there was some conflicting evidence on that subject but there was a sufficient amount of it to support the position. It is an interesting commentary in this regard that the appellant was sufficiently clever, or cunning, to blame the crime on a fictitious character, a long-bearded person named Johnnie Dollar. It was testified by a psychiatrist-witness that Johnnie Dollar was, in fact, the appellant himself and was created for the purpose of being blamed for the sordid, heinous crime that had, without doubt, been perpetrated.
The appellant's argument here in substance is an attack on the M'Naghten rule which is said in his brief to be so archaic as to require its abandonment as the law of Florida. But we have adhered to the rule since its adoption, at least as early as 1902, in Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822, from the original M'Naghten decision, Daniel M'Naghten's Case, 10 Clark & F. 200, 8 Eng.Rep. 718 (1843).
It is argued in appellant's behalf that he was a homosexual pedophile whose crimes 'were bizarre because after committing homosexual acts upon youngsters of his own male gender he then took their lives.' It is asserted 'that no sane individual would commit a homosexual act and then kill the victim out of a sense of guilt.' This is an argument we reject. The logic is obviously faulty for to follow it to conclusion would mean that the more heinous the commission of a given crime the more likelihood the perpetrator was so crazy he should be set free. As lately as the case of Van Eaton v. State, 205 So.2d 298, this court reaffirmed its adherence to the M'Naghten rule.
Two of appellant's points--(1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction, and (2) that the trial court erred in concluding that the appellant was sane at the time of commission of the alleged offense, may be determined adversely to his position by stating that as required by Sec. 924.32 of the Statutes, F.S.A., we have reviewed the entire record and do not find that the interests of justice require a new trial.
Another challenge is addressed to the ruling of the trial court disallowing the testimony of two employees of the Juvenile Court of Broward County. It is plain that the judge was only following the mandate of Sec. 39.12(4) of the Statutes, F.S.A., where appears the following inhibition:
'All information obtained in discharge of official duty by any judge, counselor, assistant counselor, or employee of any juvenile court shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the authorized personnel of the juvenile court and others entitled under this chapter to receive that information, except upon order of the judge.'
There is no showing of an effort, even, to secure an order of the juvenile judge to permit use of the information sought. So this question, too, is without merit.
The remaining points presented by the appellant deal with two statements made by him while he was incarcerated in the county jail. He called a fellow inmate, one Thomas, a trusty, to inquire how he could obtain products from the commissary presumably located in or near the jail. During this colloquy between appellant and trusty the appellant related that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 41755
...44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822. See, e.g., Piccott v. State, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 626; Van Eaton v. State, Fla.1967, 205 So.2d 298; Holston v. State, Fla.1968, 208 So.2d 98, and Campbell v. State, Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 873, cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 801, 91 S.Ct. 7, 27 L.Ed.2d 33. We seem to have done......
-
People v. Morehead
...their agents. Other decisions illustrative of the same rule are State v. Little (1968), 201 Kan. 94, 439 P.2d 387, 391; Holston v. State (Fla. 1968), 208 So.2d 98, 100, and Truex v. State (1968), 282 Ala. 191, 210 So.2d 424, 425. For a collection of cases see: Ann. 31 A.L.R.3d 656, 666--669......
-
State ex rel. Boyd v. Green
...State, 344 So.2d 244 (Fla.1977); Anderson v. State, 276 So.2d 17 (Fla.1973); Campbell v. State, 227 So.2d 873 (Fla.1969); Holston v. State, 208 So.2d 98 (Fla.1968); Van Eaton v. State, 205 So.2d 298 (Fla.1967); and Piccott v. State, 116 So.2d 626 (Fla.1959). We therefore find that the concl......
-
People v. Hawkins
...So.2d 424; State v. Lombardo (1969), 104 Ariz. 598, 457 P.2d 275; Edington v. State (1967), 243 Ark. 10, 418 S.W.2d 637; Holston v. State (Fla.1968), 208 So.2d 98; Schaumberg v. State (1967), 83 Nev. 372, 432 P.2d 500.) In People v. Brooks, 51 Ill.2d 156, 281 N.E.2d 326, we recently held th......