Holton v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1924 |
| Parties | HOLTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Madison County; M. F. Horne, Judge.
Jim Holton was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he brings error.
Reversed and new trial ordered.
Syllabus by the Court
Verdict of murder in second degree not sustained where most unfavorable view of evidence proved case merely manslaughter evidence held not to sustain conviction for murder in second degree against contention of self-defense. Where, in a prosecution for murder in the first degree, the defendant takes the stand as a witness and gives an account of the killing, in which he admits giving the fatal wound to the deceased, but states it to have been under circumstances which, if true, would have justified the act, or, upon the most unfavorable view, made a case of manslaughter only, and there was no fact or circumstance in evidence nor testimony of witness to contradict the defendant's account of the transaction, a verdict of murder in the second degree will not be sustained.
COUNSEL R. H. Rowe, of Madison, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and M. C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the second degree upon an indictment charging him with the murder of John Slaughter in Madison county on September 21, 1921.
A motion for a new trial was denied, and the defendant was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment in the state prison at hard labor He seeks on writ of error to reverse the judgment.
The first proposition is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. The body of Slaughter was found lying on the side of a road about 50 yards east of the defendant's house. There was a wound in the head of the dead man sufficient to produce instant death. A pistol was lying by his side under his right hand. The pistol was a revolver of six chambers, two of which were loaded; one contained an empty shell and three were empty. In the field near by, the dead man's mule, saddled and bridled, was grazing. The road was a dim one, and crossed the field which was under fence inclosing the defendant's house. The wound in the man's head ranged upwards, destroying the submaxillary bone, and shattering portions of the brain.
The defendant was a 'cropper' on the land where the body of Slaughter was found. The land had been rented by Dr. Kinsey, who had placed the defendant on it to make a 'crop.' In July, 1921, Dr. Kinsey told the defendant of a threat which Slaughter had made to kill him. Slaughter requested Dr. Kinsey to tell the defendant what the former said. The defendant in his testimony said that he shot the deceased who had come to the defendant's house that morning, waited for him to return from hunting, charged him with stealing a whisky 'still,' and shot at him with a pistol. The defendant said he shot the deceased in self-defense.
There was much evidence as to where the body was lying with reference to the road, the location of the wound, the position of the body, and certain articles that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cochran v. State, 67972
...2036, 68 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981). The above stated principle has been the law in this state for at least sixty years, see Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244 (1924), and our courts consistently have reversed criminal convictions in circumstantial evidence cases when the evidence failed as a ......
-
Eagan v. State
......Com., 177 Va. 824, 13 S.E.2d 315;. Thomason v. Com., 178 Va. 489, 17 S.E.2d 374;. McHugh v. State, 30 Ala.App. 231, 3 So.2d 569;. Bowen v. State, 164 Miss. 225, 144 So. 230;. Russell v. State, 91 Fla. 370, 107 So. 922;. Patty v. State, 126 Miss. 94, 88 So. 498; Holton. v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244; Underhill, Criminal. Evidence, (4th ed.) Sec. 136. In Patty v. State, supra, the. court stated:. . . "As. we view the evidence in this case, there is no positive. contradiction of the defendant's evidence as to how the. difficulty occurred. ......
-
Jones v. State
...killed the deceased in a love triangle altercation not properly negated by state's proof; murder conviction reversed); Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244 (1924) (defendant's trial testimony that he killed the deceased in self-defense not properly negated by state's proof; murder convic......
-
Thomas v. State
...126 So. 366 (1930); Metrie v. State, 98 Fla. 1228, 125 So. 352 (1930); Bellamy v. State, 96 Fla. 808, 119 So. 137 (1928); Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244 (1924); Whetston v. State, 31 Fla. 240, 12 So. 661 (1893); Coleman v. State, 26 Fla. 61, 7 So. 367 (1890). It also means that the......