Nelson v. State
| Decision Date | 09 October 1957 |
| Parties | Bozzie NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Harold Gray, Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
In an indictment signed by the State Attorney of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, it was charged that the appellant killed one Sarah Jane Campbell by stabbing her with an ice pick and that his act effectuated a premeditated design to dispatch his victim. A jury found the appellant guilty without a recommendation of mercy and the judge sentenced him to death.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is presented by appellant's assigning as error the denial by the court of a motion for directed verdict made at the conclusion of the state's evidence. Duke v. State, 137 Fla. 513, 188 So. 124. Furthermore, when a sentence of death has been imposed the court is obligated by Sec. 924.32(2), Florida Statutes 1955, and F.S.A., to examine the evidence to 'determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, whether the insufficiency of the evidence is a ground of appeal or not.'
At the outset we record that a qualified physician specializing in pathology testified that after the body of Sarah Jane Campbell was identified by a deputy sheriff of the county he proceeded to examine it for wounds. In addition to many abrasions, scratches and bruises he found in the chest and arms 29 small, sharp 'stab wounds,' that were round or oval, averaging 1/16th of an inch in diameter. The heart and liver and both lungs had been pierced by the instrument used and death had been the result. The physician said the wounds were caused by a round, sharp instrument, such as an ice pick, which was then shown him, and that because of their shape and size they could not have been caused by a knife.
In the course of the presentation of the evidence relied upon by the state to support the charge of murder in the first degree the confession of the appellant was admitted. The court seems to have followed meticulously the procedure approved by this court in Williams v. State, 156 Fla. 300, 22 So.2d 821, and Graham v. State, Fla., 91 So.2d 662, by excusing the jury while the person to whom the appellant confessed described the circumstances under which the statement was made so the court could determine whether or not the statement was freely and voluntarily made, hence admissible. And although such procedure was not indispensable to the admissibility of the confession, Rollins v. State, Fla., 41 So.2d 885, the officer who received it told the appellant, before the appellant detailed the homicide, said he committed it, and described the weapon he used, that he was not required to give damaging information, and that if he did the information might be used against him.
A study of the record on this aspect of the case convinces us that the judge properly performed his function and correctly ruled that the jury should hear what the appellant had revealed.
The appellant said he killed the woman because he was jealous and that the weapon was an ice pick which he offered to produce. Soon after, he led the deputy sheriff and the chief of police to a place near the scene of the crime, found the ice pick and handed it to the officers. The deputy sheriff marked the weapon and retained it in his possession until he presented it at the trial.
Although the appellant took the witness stand and denied that he killed Sarah Jane Campbell, or had any reason to kill her, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown, 1247
...the jury that it was within their province to elect to believe the evidence of the expert or the non-expert witnesses.' In Nelson v. State, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 250, 252, another murder case, the Supreme Court 'In presenting another point, the appellant complains that the court erred in denyi......
-
Shepard v. State
...1221 (Fla. 1997) (metal pipe, baseball bat, and mop); Craig v. State , 168 So.2d 747, 748 (Fla. 1964) (screwdriver); Nelson v. State , 97 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 1957) (ice pick); Brown v. State , 61 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla. 1952) (hammer); Brooks v. State , 115 Fla. 243, 156 So. 23, 23 (1934) (st......
-
State v. Jones
...heinous nature of the assault, there could be no reasonable doubt that, at the outset, the defendant fully intended to kill. Nelson v. State, 97 So.2d 250 (Fla.1957). Certainly shooting a person in the back of the head with a pistol is such a heinous assault that there could be no reasonabl......
-
Brown v. State
...156 Fla. 300, 22 So.2d 821 (1945), Hearn v. State, Fla., 54 So.2d 651 (1951), Graham v. State, Fla., 91 So.2d 662 (1956), Nelson v. State, Fla., 97 So.2d 250 (1957), and Young v. State, Fla., 140 So.2d 97 Before applying such a rule to a given state of facts, a court should consider the pur......