Smith v. State, (1937)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 10
Judges: BUFORD, J.
Attorneys: A. Bass and Butt Akridge, for Plaintiff in Error;
Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and Tyrus A. Norwood,
Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Filed: Oct. 20, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: We review on writ of error judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree without recommendation to mercy. *Page 612 Plaintiff in error presents two questions for our consideration, as follows: "QUESTION NO. 1. Was the evidence in this case sufficient to sustain the verdict of murder in the first degree; premeditated design to effect death being an essential element of murder in the first degree and the law imposing upon the State the duty of proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt
Summary: We review on writ of error judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree without recommendation to mercy. *Page 612 Plaintiff in error presents two questions for our consideration, as follows: "QUESTION NO. 1. Was the evidence in this case sufficient to sustain the verdict of murder in the first degree; premeditated design to effect death being an essential element of murder in the first degree and the law imposing upon the State the duty of proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt ..
More
Was there any substantial evidence to prove that the killing was done from a premeditated design? I do not think so. There was no evidence of motive, or of unfriendliness between the two men. Just what occurred between them is not known. The testimony of one witness brought out by leading question tended to
show that the defendant shot the deceased; that is, he said "the flash" of the pistol came from defendant. That is about all. The State did not call any of the witnesses whose names were on the indictment, but proved its case by entirely different witnesses. I think the motion for new trial should have been granted.
Source: CourtListener
