WILL WOOTEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Will Wooten was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting and killing McCray after an angry exchange in a car. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that premeditation can be formed immediately before the act and was sufficiently proven by Wooten's statement 'I'll kill you' immediately before shooting.
Yes. Premeditation can be formed immediately before the act and need not exist in the perpetrator's mind for any particular length of time. The evidence here—Wooten's statement 'I'll kill you' immediately before shooting—constitutes definite proof of premeditated design sufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction.
“It would be rather puzzling to conceive more definite proof of premeditated design than that shown by the statement of the accused just before he shot the deceased.”
The court's assessment that the evidence of premeditation was clear and unambiguous based on the defendant's threat.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWooten and the deceased McCray were riding in a car driven by Kimsey. When the car brushed against a fallen tree, McCray criticized the driver's handl…
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 Provocation cases and more on FLexlaw
—The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree with recommendation to mercy in the Circuit Court of Suwannee County on the 18th day of May, 1931, and was sentenced for said offense to serve his natural life in the State prison. He sued out a writ of error and brings his ease here for review.
The only question presented for our consideration is:
“Where there is no evidence of a premeditated design to kill, and the statute of limitations has run against all degrees of homicide except murder in the first degree, can a verdict of murder in the first degree be sustained?”
If the plaintiff in error had contended that the murder was committed without provocation his contention would have found support in the record, but he contends that the homicide was committed without premeditation and, therefore, that he could not be held guilty of murder in the first degree.
The record shows that the deceased was riding on a running board of a car in which the accused and others were also riding; that the driver of the car one Kimsey caused the car to brush against the top of a tree which had fallen across the road and McCray, the deceased, exclaimed to the driver, “That’s right; wreck it, wreck it,” evidently in criticism of the manner of the driver. Wooten, the accused, thereupon got a pistol from the *599pocket of the ear and said, “I’ll kill you” and thereupon shot and killed McCray.
It would he rather puzzling to conceive more definite proof of premeditated design than that shown by the statement of the accused just before he shot the deceased.
A premeditated design is not required to exist in the mind of the perpetrator of a homicide for any particular length of time to constitute such homicide murder in the first degree. If the accused is shown to have arrived at a definitely formed purpose to effect the death of the person assaulted in the manner and by the means in and with which the homicide is committed, and under such conditions that such homicide will neither be justifiable nor excusable, nor under such conditions as to reduce the crime to manslaughter or murder in the third degree, the homicide will constitute murder in the first degree, although the design and intent to commit such homicide was formed by the accused immediately before the act is actually committed.
Both malice and premeditation are questions of fact to be inferred from the circumstances of the case and are questions for the jury to determine if there is any evidence to support the existence of malice or premeditation. See Powell vs. State, 93 Fla. 756, 112 Sou. 608; Buchanan vs. State, 95 Fla. 301, 116 Sou. 275.
We find no reversible error disclosed by the record and the judgment should, therefore, be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur - in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1940)…t before the act. Savage v. State, 18 Fla. 909; Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 South. Rep. 251; Carter v. State, 22 Fla. 553; Buchanan v State, 95 Fla. 301, 116 South. Rep. 275; Rhodes v. State, 104 Fla. 520, 140 South. Rep. 309; Wooten v. State, 104 Fla. 597, 140 South. Rep. 474. “The substance of the holding in these cases upon the subject of premeditation as an element in the offense of [*79] murder is that if the purpose or intention to kill is definitely framed in the mind of the killer and he proc…
-
Pleas Forehand v. State, 126 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1936)…before the act. Savage v. State, 18 Fla. 909; Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 South. Rep. 251; Carter v. State, 22 Fla. 553; Buchanan v. State, 95 Fla. 301, 116 South. Rep. 275; Rhodes v. State, 104 Fla. 520, 140 South. Rep. 309; Wooten v. State, 104 Fla. 597, 140 South. Rep. 474. The substance of the holding in these cases upon the subject of premeditation as an element in the offense of mur [*469] der is that if'the purpose or intention to kill is definitely-framed in the mind of the killer and he pro…
-
WAY v. State, 418 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…what would otherwise be a deliberate purpose to kill. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that the defendant had formed a premeditated design to kill justifying a verdict of murder in the first degree. Wooten v. State, 104 Fla. 597, 140 So. 474 (Fla. 1932). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Buchanan v. State, 95 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1928)
- Powell v. State, 93 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1927)