ALEXANDER THOMPSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a manslaughter conviction, holding that the jury was responsible for weighing evidence of threats and self-defense, and that the defendant's voluntary engagement in the altercation weakened his self-defense claim.
The court held that the jury was the proper body to resolve conflicts in the evidence regarding threats and self-defense. The court also found that the appellant's voluntary initiation of the final altercation weakened his claim of self-defense.
“The evidence as to threats against the life of appellant and as to self-defense, was a matter for the jury to resolve.”
Establishes that the court viewed the resolution of conflicting evidence as a jury function.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was indicted for first-degree murder and convicted of manslaughter. He appealed, arguing issues with the jury box, the exclusion of evid…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury Deliberations cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was tried on an indictment charging murder in the first degree and was convicted of manslaughter. On appeal he contends that the judgment imposed on him should be reversed because the jury box was fouled, that error was committed by the trial court in refusing the introduction of evidence as to threats by deceased against the life of appellant, and that the evidence made such a strong showing of self defense that it precluded a verdict of manslaughter.
The question as to the validity of the jury box we consider without merit.
*148The evidence as to threats against the life of appellant and as to self-defense, was a matter for the jury to resolve. Taken as a whole, a perfectly reasonable deduction from it is, that appellant was smarting inside because of an altercation he had with the deceased the night before the homicide, and went to his place of business voluntarily and renewed the row which resulted in the homicide. He certainly did nothing to evade it. The evidence of self-defense is far from conclusive and the fact that appellant voluntarily went to the place of business of deceased and killed him, weakens his contention as to threats against his life by the deceased. At any rate, the jury considered all these conflicts and its verdict of manslaughter gave appellant the “breaks.” The evidence would have supported a higher degree of homicide, so he is not in position to complain.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Frona Mae Boone and Helen Goff, 85 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1956)…or a consideration paid by Bartulevy to refrain from instituting any action whatsoever and they did not limit this agreement to refrain from suing only Bartulevy. The same distinction should be noticed in the case of Martin v. Burney, 160 Fla. 183, 34 So. 2d 36. An examination of our opinion in that case will show that it was clearly a covenant not to sue certain named alleged joint tort-feasors. It was not an all-inclusive agreement covering every claim arising out of the accident regardless of whom the a…1 / 2
-
Mathis v. Virgin, 167 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…ould be controlled by the decision in Feinstone v. Allison Hospital, 106 Fla. 302, 143 So. 251, in accordance with the general authorities. See: Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Allen, 67 Fla. 257, 65 So. 8, L.R.A.1915C, 20; Martin v. Burney, 160 Fla. 183, 34 So. 2d 36; Davidow v. Seyfarth, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 865; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Boone, Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 834, 57 A.L.R.2d 1186. However, by the enactment of § 54.28,Fla.Stat., F.S.A., it is apparent that a joint tort feasor is only pro tanto released…
-
Eason v. LAU, 369 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…6) and Lomelo v. American Oil Company, 256 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)). We agree with the learned trial judge that a dismissal with prejudice under the rule is equivalent to or tantamount to a release. Reliance upon Martin v. Burney, 160 Fla. 183, 34 So. 2d 36 (1948) and Salcedo v. Southeastern Natural Gas Co., 171 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965) for a contrary position is misplaced. Those cases are both factually and legally distinguishable and have no application sub judi-ce. The query therefore becomes…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence