Spanish v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1950 |
| Citation | 45 So.2d 753 |
| Parties | SPANISH v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
S. L. Holland, Jr., Bartow, and Thacker & Thacker, Kissimmee, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General, and Reeves Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The record in this case discloses that Florence Williams, a colored woman, weighing around 130 to 140 pounds, about sixty years of age and residing in Davenport, Polk County, Florida, was reported missing Sunday, February 13, 1949. On February 21st thereafter her body was found in a decomposed condition in a palmetto thicket, a short distance from the Negro Quarters of Davenport and near the railroad track. Holes were found in her neck and chest but the body was so decomposed that it was difficult to determine other evidence of violence, if any. She was seen in the town of Davenport in company with the defendant-appellant about the time of her disappearance on Sunday evening, February 13, 1949. Her body was found about 250 yards from the point where last seen alive--on one foot was a shoe but the other shoe was found not a great distance from the point where she was last seen alive.
On March 16, 1949, a Grand Jury of Polk County presented an indictment charging the defendant-appellant with the unlawful death of Florence Williams. He entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment, a jury was obtained and a trial had on the issues made, which resulted in a verdict of murder in the second degree. A motion for new trial was made and overruled, when the trial court sentenced the defendant, J. C. Spanish, to serve a period of his natural life in the State Prison of Florida at hard labor. An appeal therefrom has been perfected here and some twnety-two reasons assigned for a reversal of the judgment entered below. Generally speaking, these several questions center about (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the corpus delicti; (2) the voluntariness of the alleged confessions by the defendant to the arresting authorities and the State Attorney; (3) the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence; (4) the instructions as given by the trial court, as well as the court's refusal to give certain requested instructions.
It is contended that the evidence adduced during the progress of the trial by the prosecution to establish the essentials of the corpus delicti was legally insufficient in that the evidence so adduced failed to show that Florence Williams met her death in the foul manner or means as alleged in the indictment. Likewise, under recognized authority, it was the duty of the trial court under the law to have sustained the objections of defendant's counsel to the introduction of alleged confessions of the defendant into evidence. If, however, the alleged confessions of the defendant were admissible they could not legally be adduced until the essentials of the corpus delicti had first been fully shown.
The corpus delicti in homicide cases usually is sufficiently established when the prosecution adduces evidence showing: (1) the fact of death; (2) the identity of the deceased, and (3) the criminal agency of another as the cause of death. Deiterle v. State, 101 Fla. 79, 134 So. 42. The order of proof is first to show the corpus delicti prior to offering evidence in reference to the commission of the crime by the defendant and this rule should prevail where the question of the corpus delicti is clearly separate and distinct from the question of the guilt of the accused. But in many cases the two elements are so intimately connected that the proof of the corpus delicti and the guilty agency are shown at the same time, hence the order of proof in such cases is generally within the discretion of the trial court. Anderson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavez v. State
...analysis: The general order of proof is to show that a crime has been committed and then that the defendant committed it. Spanish v. State, 45 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1950); see State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976). "But in many cases the two elements are so intimately connected that the proof ......
-
Chavez v. State
...analysis: The general order of proof is to show that a crime has been committed and then that the defendant committed it. Spanish v. State, 45 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1950); see State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976). "But in many cases the two elements are so intimately connected that the pro......
-
Powell v. State
...weapon. The general order of proof is to show that a crime has been committed and then that the defendant committed it. Spanish v. State, 45 So.2d 753, 754 (Fla.1950); see State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825-825 (Fla.1976). A defendant's confession or statement "may be considered in connecti......
-
Tanzi v. State
...analysis: The general order of proof is to show that a crime has been committed and then that the defendant committed it. Spanish v. State, 45 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1950); see State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976). "But in many cases the two elements are so intimately connected that the proof ......
-
The anatomy of Florida's corpus delicti doctrine.
...1994). [24] Jefferson v. State, 128 So. 2d 132,135 (Fla. 1961). [25] Franqui, 699 So. 2d at 1317 (emphasis added). [26] Spanish v. State, 45 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1950) (citing Anderson v. State, 3 So. 884 (Fla. 1888); and Holland v. State, 22 So. 298 (Fla. 1897)). See also 24 FLA. JUR. 2D Evide......