Pleas v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | 34389,Nos. 34390,s. 34390 |
| Citation | 184 So.2d 647 |
| Parties | Wallace PLEAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (two cases). |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Truett & Watkins, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and John S. Burton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Wallace Pleas, was charged with murder in the first degree, in one indictment alleging the unlawful killing of Precious Rollins and the other indictment alleging the unlawful killing of Carrie Mae Stinson. The cases were consolidated for trial with consent of counsel and the appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy in both cases. A motion for new trial was filed and denied and the court entered a judgment of guilty and sentence of death.
The testimony and evidence introduced at the trial established that on September 14, 1964, the defendant, Wallace Pleas, inflicted certain gunshot wounds upon both Precious Rollins and Carrie Mae Stinson. The fact of the shooting and that such wounds were the proximate cause of the death of these persons were not in dispute and were admitted by the defendant after they had been originally established by the state's witnesses.
Six points of error, including one that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty without recommendation of mercy, are now presented and argued in three points on appeal. We shall resolve all of them.
The appellant argues, first, the propriety of the trial court's allowing into evidence, over objection of the defendant, certain pictures which he contends were designed and intended solely to prejudice and inflame the jury against the defendant. We have examined the record and find that the photographs were material as corroborating the testimony of the witnesses for the state, and that their admission comes within the rule announced in Leach v. State (Fla.1961), 132 So.2d 329, and cases therein cited.
As a second point on appeal the appellant contends that the instructions of the court concerning the questions of premeditation and heat of passion as reducing the degree of the offense charged were inadequate. We find no merit in this contention. The over-all charges of the trial court fully and ably cover all appropriate and required instruction, and the additional charge requested was correctly denied by the trial judge.
The final question is a blanket assault on the sufficiency of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State, s. 69-644
...warrant their refusal in evidence. Gragg v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 59; Cullaro v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 40; Pleas v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So.2d 647; Calloway v. State, Fla.1966, 189 So.2d 617. But where admittedly gruesome and reasonably calculated to inflame the minds of th......
-
Wasley v. State, 38759
...v. State, 155 So.2d 129 (Fla.1963); Blake v. State, 156 So.2d 511 (Fla.1963); Reddish v. State, 167 So.2d 858 (Fla.1954); Pleas v. State, 184 So.2d 647 (Fla.1966); Calloway v. State, 189 So.2d 617 (Fla.1966); See also, Dillen v. State, 202 So.2d 904 (2nd Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1967); Belger v. Sta......
-
Albritton v. State
...warrant their refusal in evidence. Gragg v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 59; Cullaro v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 40; Pleas v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So.2d 647; Calloway v. State, Fla.1966, 189 So.2d 617. But where admittedly gruesome and reasonably calculated to inflame the minds of th......
-
Young v. State, 37186
...1967), for a discussion of situations distinguishable from the instant cause.16 Calloway v. State, 189 So.2d 617 (Fla.1966); Pleas v. State, 184 So.2d 647 (Fla.1966).17 Dyken v. State, 89 So.2d 866 (Fla.1956).18 Pleas v. State, 184 So.2d 647 (Fla.1966).19 132 So.2d 329, 331--332 (Fla.1961).......