Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 28 September 1971
• Docket Number: No. 70-523.,70-523.
• Citation: 252 So.2d 243
• Parties: Noble WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

252 So.2d 243

Noble WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-523.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 21, 1971.

Rehearing Denied September 28, 1971.

Alfred J. Skaf and Edward M. Kay of Varon & Stahl, Hollywood, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Rodney Durrance, Jr., James M. Adams, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

REED, Chief Judge.

The defendant, Noble Williams, was indicted for the first degree murder of James Edward Johnson. He was tried in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, on 20 May 1970 and found guilty by the jury. Thereafter the defendant was adjudged guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is the appellant.

The point presented by this appeal as set forth in the defendant's brief is whether or not,

"The court committed prejudicial error when it did not allow into evidence previous violent acts by the deceased when such acts gave meaning and significance to the conduct of the deceased at the time of the killing."

The evidence indicates that the defendant shot and killed one James Edward Johnson in a grocery store in Dania, Florida, on 28 January 1970. Earlier that day the defendant and the deceased had had an argument in the course of which the defendant accused the deceased of having stolen defendant's wallet. After the argument the deceased out of defendant's presence threatened to kill the defendant and armed himself. This was reported to the defendant who thereupon armed himself with a shotgun and set out to find the deceased to try, according to the defendant, to reason with him.

Defendant found the deceased in a telephone booth outside of Bub's Grocery Store. The deceased had a gun in the booth. The defendant commanded the deceased to put the gun down and come out of the booth. Thereupon the following occurred according to the defendant's testimony:

* * * * * * "A. He put the gun down and he came out the phone booth. So he went to go in the store. I told him, `Don't go in the store', but he went in any-way. When he went in, I went in behind him.

"Q. Why did you stay next to him?

"A. You know, if I had turned my back on him he might have had the .38 on him and he might have shot me. I didn't want that. So I went in the store. He went down the aisle and broke and started to run. So I ran after him. I thought he was trying to get room to get his gun. So when —

"Q. What gun did you think he had, Noble?

"A. .38, small one.

"Q. Why did you think that?

"A. Because he always carried it with him.

"Q. Where did he carry it?

"A. In the waist, pants, under his shirt.

* * * * * *

"Q. (By Mr. Kay) What did you do when you got in the store?

"A. I tried to stay close to him. He tried to break away, and he grabbed me when we got to the end of the store.

"Q. Where was this in the store?

"A. Down at the end of the bread counter. And he grabbed my gun. I told him, I said, `Hold it, I just want to talk to you.' And he wouldn't listen, and he grabbed the gun with one hand and backed up and went like this (indicating). I thought he was going to get a gun, and that's when I shot him.

"Q. Why did you shoot him?

"A. I thought he was going to get a gun and shoot me."

The police investigation conducted shortly after the slaying failed to reveal any weapon on or about the body of the deceased. The investigating police officer did find a shotgun in the telephone booth.

During the defendant's testimony on direct he was asked whether or not he knew of the deceased's reputation in the community for violence. The defendant responded in the affirmative. He was then asked how he knew that reputation. In reply to this question the defendant said, "I have three incidents in which I can state. One was —." At this point an objection to the testimony was sustained on the ground that defendant could not testify as to specific acts of violence by the deceased.

The Florida law relating to the admissibility of evidence of prior acts of violence by the deceased when offered in support of a defense of self-defense has developed through a process of judicial evolution which began with cases involving the admissibility of reputation evidence. But for purposes of applying the law a careful distinction should be made between evidence of specific prior acts of violence by the deceased and evidence of the deceased's reputation for violence.

The first significant opinion was Garner v. State, 1891, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835. In the Garner case the defendant was charged with the murder of one Lasley. The trial judge refused to allow evidence offered by the defendant to show that Lasley was a man of violent character. A witness testified that at the time of the shooting, Lasley had his left hand on the defendant and his right hand at his (Lasley's) hip pocket. The Florida Supreme Court held that evidence of the deceased's violent character was admissible in support of the defense of self-defense because such evidence tended to show that the defendant acted under circumstances that would have caused a man of ordinary reason to think himself in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of the deceased. The court also held that before such evidence could be admitted in support of the defense, there must be some showing of an overt act on the part of the deceased at the time of the slaying which would tend to indicate a need for action by the defendant in self-defense. Proof of violent character, the court said, could be made only by evidence of the deceased's reputation in the community and evidence of specific acts of bad conduct on the part of the deceased was not admissible. The court concluded that the conduct of the deceased as shown by the witness who related what occurred at the time of the shooting was a sufficient predicate for evidence of Lasley's violent character and reversed the trial court.

Through subsequent applications of the rule in Garner's case, the purpose for which evidence of violent character could be used was expanded so that such evidence, when offered in support of a claim of self-defense, could be used not only to prove the reasonableness of the defendant's belief that at the time of the slaying he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury, but also to resolve the factual issue, if any, as to who was the aggressor in the fatal affray. See the restatement of the Garner rule in Fine v. State, 1915, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379, where the court said:

"Upon the trial of an indictment for murder where the defense is self-defense, the character of the deceased as to peace and quiet frequently becomes a material subject for investigation. If the evidence, as in this case, is conflicting upon the question as to who began the difficulty, or whether the deceased's conduct or actions just prior to the encounter reasonably justified the belief that he was about to make an assault upon the accused, evidence as to the general reputation of the deceased for peace and quiet may lead the jury to a correct conclusion as to the guilt of the accused by enabling them to determine who really began the difficulty, and the reasonableness of the defendant's belief as to imminent danger to himself of great bodily harm or death from the deceased. * * *" (Emphasis added.)

See also Hart v. State, 1896, 38...