ABE MIDDLETON, 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.
Middleton was convicted of first-degree murder for fatally shooting the deceased at a store in Clay County. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's finding of premeditated design to kill, despite Middleton's argument that the evidence was insufficient.
The judgment of conviction for first-degree murder is affirmed. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury's finding that Middleton shot the deceased from a premeditated design to effect his death, and the appellate court will not set aside a verdict of guilty if some evidence supports all essential facts and the whole evidence fairly supports the verdict.
“Where a homicide is charged to have been perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect death, and there are no facts or circumstances in evidence from which the formation of such a premeditated design may be fairly found by the jury, a verdict of murder in the first degree should be set aside.”
States the legal standard for when a first-degree murder verdict must be overturned due to insufficient evidence of premeditation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe homicide occurred at a store in Clay County in the early evening. Middleton had been at the store in the afternoon when the deceased and others we…
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 Premeditated Design To Effect Death cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
— On writ of error to a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree it is contended only that the evidence does not show the homicide tó have been perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the deceased as charged in the indict ment.
Where a homicide is charged to have been perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect death, and there are no facts or circumstances in evidence from which the formation of such a premeditated design may be fairly found by the jury, a verdict of murder in the first degree should be set aside. Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12, 44 South. Rep. 719. But an appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is some evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and the whole evidence is such that the verdict may have fairly been found on it. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485.
The homicide was committed in the early part of the night at a store in Clay County. It appears that the defendant was at the store in the afternoon when several persons, among them the deceased, were there, one of whom, not the deceased, spoke harshly to him, and when the defendant returned to the store at night he had his gun. While the defendant was at the store several men, including the deceased, went in the store together, and as they started out the defendant had a difficulty with one of them, not the deceased, at. the store , door. All went out the door in the dark. Upon separating from the man with whom he had an encounter, the defendant fired his gun fatally wounding the deceased; who was one of the party, but who had had no difficulty with defendant. From these and other circumstances disclosed by the transcript' of the record, the jury were warranted in finding that the defendant shot the deceased from a premeditated design to effect his death. No shots were fired except by the defendant. This being so, the judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor and Hocker, J. J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1936)…58, 40 South. Rep. 191. It must be so plainly against the evidence as to lead to the conclusion that it was the result of prejudice. McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248, 10 South. Rep. 588. Or against the manifest justice of the case. Middleton v. State, 63 Fla. 24, 58 South. Rep. 225. If the entire evidence is such that the verdict may have been fairly found on it, the court will not disturb the finding. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485. The Supreme Court has no power to consider the weight…
-
Heitman v. Davis, 127 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1937)…58, 40 South. Rep. 191. It must be so plainly against the evidence as to lead to the conclusion that it was the result of prejudice. McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248, 10 South. Rep. 588. Or against the manifest justice of the case. Middleton v. State, 63 Fla. 24, 58 South. 225. “If the entire evidence is such that the verdict may have been fairly found on it, the court will not disturb the finding. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485. “The Supreme Court has no power to consider the weight of…
-
Darius W. Johnson v. State, 101 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…iciency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is substantial evidence of all the essential facts. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485; Powell v. State, 63 Fla. 34, 57 So. 609; Middleton v. State, 63 Fla. 24, 58 So. 225; Lancaster v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 643. 'The guiding principle controlling is whether as reasonable men the jury could have found the challenged verdict from all the ■evidence adduced. Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So. 2d 120.…
Authorities Cited
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1907)