Melton v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1947 |
| Citation | 159 Fla. 106,30 So.2d 916 |
| Parties | MELTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Bayard B. Shields judge.
John O Jackson, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jesse F. Warren, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Tom Melton, 30, was convicted of ravishing and carnally knowing, forcefully and against her will, a girl aged 16, and was sentenced to death in the electric chair.
On the night of June 27, 1946, the victim was seated in a car, about 10:30 in an isolated section of the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, with her companion. The couple had attended a motion picture show, after which they partook of a soft drink at a drive-in barbecue stand and thereafter parked at the place mentioned prior to returning home. This was their third date since her friend had been discharged from the service. They had known each other practically all of their lives.
While thus seated (they had arrived only a minute or so before), the appellant came up to the car, put his flashlight on them with one hand and brandished a pistol in the other and ordered them to hold up their hands. He took $10 from the boy and $7 and some change from the girl, together with the car keys. He threatened to kill them if they made any outcry or attempted resistance. Appellant the ordered the girl to get into the back seat of the car and required her companion to lie down in the front seat, where the appellant examined him for presence of weapons. (All of this time he was holding the flashlight in one hand and the loaded gun in the other.)
Thereafter he ordered the girl back into the front seat and said: 'I want to see how white folks does it.' Both the boy and the girl protested and told appellant that, since he had their money, he should leave them, but, after several threats to kill, he required the girl to pull up her dress, take off her pants and elevate her right foot on the back of the front seat, place her left foot in the window of the door (which he had propped open), and ordered her friend to get on top of her. Although protesting vigorously, he proceeded to go through the motions of intercourse until appellant became dissatisfied and said: 'You are not doing nothing.' He then told the boy he would allow him five minutes more and, if he did not succeed in that time 'I'm going to get it for you.' Both the girl and the boy testified that their private parts did not touch or connect and that he did not penetrate her in any wise.
Becoming disgusted with the performance of the boy, appellant ordered him out of the car, over into a ditch, with his back to the car, and told him he would kill him if he looked around at any time or made any attempt to show any form of resistance. Appellant thereupon ordered the girl to slip closer to him, and he testified that he put his arm under her back, to pull her closer, so that he could penetrate her, and he said (upon cross-examination): 'I was running hot at the time, and I was going to try it.' He then took out his handkerchief and blindfolded the girl as he testified: 'I didn't want her to see me.' All of this time she was in fear of appellant and obeyed his orders because she was afraid he would take her life. He kept the loaded pistol in his hand which coupled with his constant threats to kill was sufficient to place fear in anyone.
Appellant then raped and had intercourse with her for about ten minutes, during which time she made several outcries and groans and grunts, which were heard by her friend, but he was unable to assist. She testified that the pain was excruciating, especially when he moved, and that she felt it all the way up into her stomach. After appellant had concluded, and she stood up, she felt liquid running down her legs, which later proved to be blood. Appellant took the handkerchief with which he had blindfolded her during the assault, wiped off all finger prints on the car and the handles of the doors. He then ordered her companion to drive the car away, and appellant stood (with his handkerchief covering part of his face) on the running board for a while, after which he got into the front seat of the car and rode several blocks with the pistol still in his hand.
After leaving the car, he again threatened the couple, saying that he had taken the license number of the automobile and that if a report were made, he knew where they lived and who they were and that he would kill them if any discovery were made of his acts. The boy immediately took her home, which was about six or seven blocks distant, arriving there around 11:30 at night, where, after gaining entrance, she immediately exclaimed to her mother: 'A negro just raped me.' Her mother laid her on the bed, wiped blood from her legs, which was flowing from her vagina, and, with the boy's father, took her to St. Luke's Hospital, in Jacksonville, where a complete medical and technical examination was made. This disclosed that the flow of blood was caused by a complete rupture of the hymen. The uncontradicted evidence of the examining physician was that she was a virgin before the assault by appellant; that she had in her vaginal parts live male sperm, which the physician testified had been inserted in her not more than two hours prior to the examination.
The testimony of appellant does not vary much from that of prosecutrix. There is little conflict in the evidence, except that he in brief, is that he came up to the car and in brief is tht he came up to the car and told the occupants that, inasmuch as they were out for love and romance, he wanted to see 'how the white folks does it' and he wanted to help them (especially the boy) accomplish their desires. He then robbed them of their money at the point of a loaded gun. After the unsuccessful performance of the boy (which the appellant instigated), he proceeded to rape the girl at the point of a gun; that she protested and said: 'I have just had an operation down there;' that, although he had his male organ out and in condition for insertion, her statement made him ashamed of himself and he withdrew and did not complete his contemplated act; that he did not see any blood on her in any respect and that the companion had told him previously that he could not do anything because they had just completed an act of intercourse. The overwhelming proof contradicts his unsupported statement. There...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ray v. State
-
Leach v. State, 30952
...149 Fla. 365, 5 So.2d 703; Boston v. State, 153 Fla. 698, 15 So.2d 607; Thompson v. State, 154 Fla. 323, 17 So.2d 395; Melton v. State, 159 Fla. 106, 30 So.2d 916. In the instant case, after a thorough investigation to determine the voluntary nature of the confession the trial judge, in sum......
-
McDonnell v. State, 73--102
...harmless error rule to the erroneous admission of confessions. Daughterty v. State, 154 Fla. 308, 17 So.2d 290 (1944); Melton v. State, 159 Fla. 106, 30 So.2d 916 (1947); Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862; Blatch v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 261. So also has the Supreme Cou......
-
Way v. State
...119 Fla, 839, 161 So. 729, and that this rule was followed in the cases of Thomas v. State, 96 Fla. 243, 118 So. 22; Melton v. State, 159 Fla. 106, 30 So.2d 916, as well as in the recent case of Norfleet v. State, Fla., 53 So.2d 537 and Peacock v. State, Fla., 53 So.2d In none of these case......