Peele v. State
| Citation | 155 Fla. 235,20 So.2d 120 |
| Parties | PEELE v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1944 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1945.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bradford County; A. Z. Adkins judge.
Zach H. Douglas, of Gainesville, Hal Y. Maines, of Lake Butler, and J. C. Adkins, Jr., of Gainesville, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and John C. Wynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Edna Peele, was indicted by a grand jury of Bradford County Florida, for the first degree murder of Ancil Thompson on August 14, 1943, in Bradford County, Florida. When arraigned in open court she entered a plea of not guilty and was placed upon trial before a jury, who, after hearing all the testimony of the parties and the charges or instructions of the trial court upon the applicable law of the case, returned a verdict of manslaughter. A motion for a new trial was made and denied, when the appellant was sentenced to serve a period of eighteen months at hard labor in the State Prison. From this judgment she has perfected an appeal here and contends that the judgment entered against her in the lower court should be reversed for two reasons.
The first question posed for adjudication is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment as entered in the lower court. The answer to the propounded question requires a careful study and an analysis of all the testimony appearing in the record. It is established that the appellant and husband, Joe Peele, owned and maintained a grocery store and restaurant located on the main street of the town of Lawtey. They had but one child and had their home on the second floor over the grocery store. Two young ladies were employed in the restaurant and lived with the Peeles. A meat market was operated in connection with the grocery store, and the trade therein handled almost exclusively by appellant.
Friction developed between appellant and a Mr. Wiggins at the grocery store during the day of August 14, 1943, resulting in Wiggins' arrest on the complaint of appellant by the town marshal of Lawtey and the posting by him of a $10 bond. Wiggins appears from the evidence as a disturbing factor to the Peeles from the time of his arrest until Ancil Thompson was killed in front of the appellant's apartment around 11:00 o'clock P. M. of the same day. Wiggins was present and sustained a minor wound when Thompson was killed. It is in the testimony that the Peeles closed their business earlier than usual on this (Saturday) night and retired to their home so as to avoid clashes or trouble with Wiggins and his friends and relatives. Efforts to obtain protection from the town marshal failed and a telephone call to the Sheriff at Starke for protection was made. An appeal was made to the State Highway Patrol.
There is evidence to the effect that shortly prior to the fatal shooting rocks stones and bottles and other debris were thrown (presumably by Wiggins and his friends and relatives) about the home and place of business of the appellant, but a search by the Sheriff on the following day failed to reveal any of these missiles. Likewise that there were several shots fired about the property, and the odor of whiskey 'on the mob' was testified to by one or more witnesses. Wiggins wanted to talk with the appellant and reach an understanding with her for the return of his $10 previously posted with the town of Lawtey as a bond. He assumed the authority for calling at her home for this purpose between 10:30 and 11:00 o'clock P.M., after business hours. On this mission he was accompanied by several relatives and friends--mostly young men.
When he (Wiggins) was talking with appellant about the return of the $10 a tussle arose over the possession of a shotgun then in the possession of a Mr. Bennett, a friend of one of the girl employees. Several of Wiggins' friends or relatives accompanying him to the appellant's home joined in the effort to take the shotgun, and Wiggins turned from the appellant and joined the group. The appellant then fired into the group, which resulted in the death of Ancil Thompson and the wounding of others. Our study of the record induces us to conclude that the boys or young men about the Peele home on this occasion belonged in that community or neighborhood.
The Wiggins group was at or near the Peele home (and place of business then closed) around 11:00 o'clock without invitation from the Peeles. Missiles had been thrown or hurled against the Peele home. One of the Peele group was armed and his disarmament was undertaken (lawfully or unlawfully) by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pellegrino, 19946
...to be imminent at the hands of the assailant. See State v. Lepine, 21 S.D. 500, 503, 113 N.W. 1076, 1077 (1907); Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120, 121 (1944)(citing Wilson v. State, 30 Fla. 234, 11 So. 556, 561 (1892)); Lightbourn v. State, 129 Fla. 43, 175 So. 857 (1937); Russell......
-
Falco v. State
...deadly force if there exist reasonable and factual grounds to believe that unless so used, a felony would be committed. Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120 (1944); Russell v. State, 61 Fla. 50, 54 So. 360 (1911); Wilson v. State, 30 Fla. 234, 11 So. 556 (1892); Harris v. State, 104 S......
-
Askew v. State
...C. J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur. 1 Spanish v. State, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 753; Peele v. State, 1940, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120.2 75 C.J.S. Rape § 8, p. 471; 44 Am.Jur., Rape, § 2, p. 902.3 F.S. § 794.01, F.S.A.4 State v. Bowden, 1944, 154 Fla. 511, 18 So......
-
Rotenberry v. State
...entire instructions as given must be considered as an entirety and should not be considered in isolated portions." Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 239, 20 So.2d 120, 122 (1944). A delicate balance has been struck between informing the jury on the law of entrapment and avoiding undue emphasis ......