Savage v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1948 |
| Citation | 38 So.2d 47 |
| Parties | SAVAGE v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1949.
Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; W. M. Murphy, judge.
Fishback, Smith & Williams, of Orlando, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Rebecca Bowles Marks, of Tallahassee, for appellee.
The appellant, Owen Savage, was tried in the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County, Florida, under an indictment charging murder in the second degree and resulted in a verdict of manslaughter. He was adjudged guilty by the trial court of the charge of manslaughter and sentenced to the State Prison for a period of twenty years, and has perfected his appeal here. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over seasonable objections, during the progress of the trial certain statements tending to establish that the appellant unlawfully took certain property from the business operated or managed by him.
It is next contended that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the crime of manslaughter. We have studied the testimony and find it not only is sufficient to support the verdict but even a higher degree of homicide. It is not denied that the deceased received seven wounds inflicted by a hunting knife at the hands of the appellant. It is true that the deceased was a larger and younger man but at the time of the encounter he was not armed. It was not necessary for the appellant to inflict these seven wounds in order to protect himself in his fight with the deceased.
It is next contended that a photograph admitted into evidence by the State depicting the wounds of the deceased was erroneous on the theory that it aroused the passions and prejudice of the jury against the appellant. It cannot be denied that the photograph reflects a gruesome spectacle. The writer is convinced that there is merit in the contention and so expressed himself in a dissenting opinion in Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625. The majority opinion in the case reached a contra conclusion. The writer feels that he is bound by the majority view, and, in applying the rule, we are forced to conclude that the assignment is without merit. Other authorities cited to sustain this assignment have not been overlooked.
We fail to find error in the record.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 44; Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 122; Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 524; Savage v. State, Fla.1948, 38 So.2d 47. We have not overlooked the decisions in Lovely v. United States, 4 Cir., 169 F.2d 386, and Gluck v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d ......
-
Wasley v. State, 38759
...Judge, concur. 1 Lindberg v. State, 134 Fla. 786, 184 So. 662 (1938); Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625 (1940); Savage v. State, 38 So.2d 47 (Fla.1948); Thomas v. State, 59 So.2d 517 (Fla.1952); Kitchen v. State, 89 So.2d 667 (Fla.1956); Dyken v. State, 89 So.2d 866 (Fla.1956); Br......
-
Crosby v. State, s. 69-550
...v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 44; Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 122; Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 524; Savage v. State, Fla.1948, 38 So.2d 47.' In the instant case the testimony of Mr. Stephens as to the prior offense was relevant in that it tended to show a common sch......