Palmer v. State
| Decision Date | 19 July 1932 |
| Citation | 143 So. 126,106 Fla. 237 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | PALMER et al. v. STATE. |
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.
Victor Palmer, alias Vic Palmer, and another were convicted of murder, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL Burnside & Richard and R. G. Tittsworth, all of Tampa, for plaintiffs in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Charles B. Parkhill, State Atty., of Tampa, for the State.
This case is before the court on writ of error from a judgment of the circuit court of Hillsborough county sentencing the plaintiffs in error to death for the murder of Joe B Johnson.
The evidence shows that Joe B. Johnson, a well-to-do citizen of Tampa, was shot and killed on the night of Sunday Jannuary 18, 1931, near midnight, while he was putting his automobile in a garage in the rear of Crescent Apartments in Tampa. The motive was robbery. The shot that killed Johnson was fired by the plaintiff in error, Victor Palmer, who, according to his own confession and testimony at the trial, was furnished the pistol for that purpose by one Louis Leavine, with the instruction: 'Here is the gun, tell him to stick them up and if he don't stick them up pull the trigger.' The pistol was a .32 caliber automatic pistol, and, when Johnson failed to 'stick them up' quick enough, Palmer followed instructions to 'pull the trigger,' with the result that Johnson was wounded one time in the right breast just under the nipple, from which wound he died late the following day. Prior to this time, Louis Leavine 'Bubber' Heidt, and Victor Palmer had been riding around together in a Ford sedan car which Leavine had borrowed for the purpose, and, at the time of the shooting by Palmer, he and Leavine were together after having left the car in charge of Heidt, who remained with it.
Leavine Palmer, and Heidt were jointly indicted, but only Palmer and Heidt were jointly tried. The jury found both of them guilty of murder in the first degree, without recommendation to mercy. Leavine having escaped the country and not being in custody at the time of the trial of Palmer and Heidt, a severance was granted as to him on motion of the state. After the verdicts of guilty, motions for new trial were separately made and denied as to each of the plaintiffs in error.
The guilt of both plaintiffs in error is amply established by the evidence, which consists not only of the testimony of disinterested witnesses as to circumstances corroborating their guilt, but of proof of damaging admissions by each of them concerning their personal participation in the series of acts which immediately preceded and accompanied the ultimate attempted robbery and actual murder.
Palmer confessed firing the shot while attempting the robbery of Johnson, and also testified at the trial to that effect. Heidt did not become a witness nor testify at the trial, but his written statement or so-called 'confession,' which had been made and signed by him, shows that he was present at the scene of the homicide when the fatal shot was fired; that just prior to that time he had been in the same car in company with the other two participants, one of whom admitted he actually fired the shot, and that he (Heidt) drove away with one of them from the scene of the shooting.
This showing was sufficient to warrant the jury in rejecting the exculpatory portion of Heidt's so-called 'confession' wherein he undertook to relieve himself of guilt of complicity in the crime by showing that, while he was present at the place of the attempted robbery and heard the gun fire about the time Johnson was shot and Louis Leavine came back and Victor Palmer ran away, that he knew nothing of the 'criminal intentions' of either of his companions in connection with their endeavor to perpetrate a robbery while Heidt himself innocently remained alone in the car waiting for the others to return. Also Heidt's apparent flight a day or two later to Savannah, Ga., where he was arrested, confirms the jury's right to draw the inference that he was implicated in the crime which was just then about to be solved by the police by the arrest of one of its perpetrators, when Heidt acquired his unexplained eagerness to go to work in a distant city.
The court has carefully considered the whole case as disclosed by the transcript, and finds some irregularities but no reversible error in the record. Both defendants were given a fair trial, and the resultant verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree is the only verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leavine v. State
...were convicted of murder in the first degree; that a writ of error from this court to that judgment resulted in an affirmance. Palmer v. State (Fla.) 143 So. 126. bill of exceptions discloses that on February 29, 1932, issue having been joined, the jurors summoned for the trial were called ......
-
Campfield v. State
...of the robbery. It is apparent that the confession of the co-defendant could not have prejudiced appellant's case. Palmer v. State, 1933, 106 Fla. 237, 143 So. 126, 145 So. 69, stands for the proposition that where no prejudice results to the appellant from the co-defendant's confession, th......
-
Jackman v. State, s. 61-318
...there was an abuse of discretion. Manson v. State, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 272; Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280, 166 So. 743; Palmer v. State, 106 Fla. 237, 143 So. 126, 145 So. 69; § 918.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Where evidence incompetent and prejudicial against one defendant is to be introduced ag......
-
Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Luke
... ... must appear from its record, and in the absence of such ... record the appellate court can neither affirm nor reverse. In ... Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106, 69 A.L.R ... 783, it was held that until a judgment is entered of record, ... there is no competent evidence of its ... the evidence to sustain the verdict. Holstun & Son v ... Embry, 124 Fla. 554, 169 So. 400; Palmer v. State, ... 106 Fla. 237, 143 So. 126, 145 So. 69; Greenblatt v ... Bizell Dry Goods Co., 85 Fla. 83, 95 So. 302 ... We have already ... ...