Owens v. State
| Decision Date | 28 May 1913 |
| Citation | 62 So. 651,65 Fla. 483 |
| Parties | OWENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; D. J. Jones, Judge.
Thomas B. Owens was convicted of murder in the second degree, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Under the statute where the evidence would have supported a verdict of murder in the first degree, a verdict of murder in the second degree sustained by the trial court will not be set aside by the appellate court on the ground that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
Where O. is charged with the murder of W., thinking he was M., and there is evidence tending to support the charge, testimony as to threats made by O. against M. is admissible.
Hearsay and irrelevant testimony is properly excluded.
The wide latitude allowed in criminal prosecutions in offering testimony in cases of merely circumstantial evidence may not be appropriate, when the evidence of guilt is not entirely circumstantial.
Technical errors in the admission or rejection of testimony will not cause a reversal, where it is clear the supposed errors are harmless.
Where a defendant testifies that he made a certain communication to another, it is not error to allow proper cross-examination as to the nature and character of the communication.
It is not error to refuse charges already in effect given.
Where there is substantial evidence to support a verdict, and it does not appear that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed; no material errors of law or procedure appearing in the record.
COUNSEL Smith & Davis, of Marianna, and Avery & Price of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.
T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, of
An indictment in two counts charged that (1) Thomas B. Owens did by shooting 'unlawfully kill one William E. Wester, a human being, * * * from and with a premeditated design to effect the death of the said William E. Wester'; and that (2) Owens did 'unlawfully kill one William E. Wester, a human being, by then and there unlawfully, and from and with a premeditated design to effect the death of one A. J McMillan, Jr., a human being, shooting the said William E. Wester, under the belief at the time of such shooting that the said William E. Wester was then and there the said A. J. McMillan, Jr.' The defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree on the second count, and took writ of error.
The statutes relating to the subject are as follows:
Section 3205, Gen. Stats. 1906.
'In all criminal prosecutions hereafter begun in this state, if the defendant be found guilty of an offense lesser in degree, but included within the offense charged in the indictment or information, such verdict shall not be set aside by the court, upon the ground that such verdict is contrary to the evidence, if the evidence produced in such case would have supported a finding, or if such court would have sustained a verdict of guilty of the greater offense.' Section 4007, Gen. Stats. 1906.
The accused was convicted of murder in the second degree under a charge of murder in the first degree for the unlawful killing of Wester from a premeditated design to effect the death of McMillan. If the evidence would have supported a verdict of murder in the first degree under the second count, viz., the alleged unlawful killing of Wester from a premeditated design to kill McMillan, then under the statute the verdict finding the accused guilty of murder in the second degree under the second count should not be set aside by the court upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
It appears that Wester was fatally shot about 2 o'clock p m. in a swamp near a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
... ... accord with the law and the charge of the court. Wilkins ... v. State, 75 Fla. 483, 78 So. 523; Milligan v ... State, 75 Fla. 815, 78 So. 535; McQuagge v ... State, 80 Fla. 768, 87 So. 60; Ward v. State, ... 83 Fla. 311, 91 So. 189; Owens v. State, 65 Fal ... 483, 62 So. 651; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 ... So. 983; Chancey v. State, 68 Fla. 93, 66 So. 430; ... Robinson v. State, 70 Fla. 628, 70 So. 595 ... The ... admission of incompetent evidence is harmless error, when the ... evidence properly ... ...
-
Carnley v. Cochran, 158
...So.2d 99 (Fla.Ct.App.3d Dist.). Hearsay evidence takes on added importance in jury trials. It is excluded if prejudicial. Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 So. 651; Alvarez v. State, 75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272. But if admitted without objection, it is generally regarded as having been received b......
-
Ward v. State
... ... admissible to show who began the difficulty. It was ... competent [75 Fla. 764] evidence to be given such weight by ... the jury as they under all the circumstances thought proper ... Rawlins v. State, 26 Fla. 155, 24 So. 65; Hodge ... v. State, 26 Fla. 11, 7 So. 593; Owens v ... State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 So. 651; Hall v. State, ... 70 Fla. 48, 69 So. 692. The objections raised by counsel to ... this evidence were that the threats made by the defendant ... were indefinite, the reference to the Land boys being too ... general, and the time when the alleged threat ... ...
-
Mercer v. State
...that it was wrong, where the matter sought to be elicited was afterwards testified to by the witness without objection. See Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 So. 651. fourth assignment of error is too general to be considered. The assignment is that---- The court erred in 'permitting the stat......