EDWARD F. ANDREWS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction and death sentence, holding that while the appellate court might not have found premeditation, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer it. The court noted procedural issues with the appeal but reviewed the evidence due to the capital nature of the case.
Yes, the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to lawfully infer the premeditated design required for a first-degree murder conviction, even if the appellate judges might have reached a different conclusion.
“While the transcript purports to contain all the evidence adduced at the trial, the order overruling the motion for new trial does not appear to have been excepted to as is required by law to secure a review of the order by the appellate court.”
The court noted a procedural defect in the appeal process regarding the review of the order denying a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The killing was admitted, but the defense argued the evidence did …
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 Capital Case Review cases and more on FLexlaw
[*378] Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree and the death sentence was imposed. A writ of error was taken. The killing of the deceased by the accused is admitted, and the only contention made here is that the testimony does not show a premeditated design to effect the death of the deceased, and that consequently the verdid of murder in the first degree is not sustained by tie evidence. While the transcript purports to contain all the evidence adduced at the trial, the order overruling the motion for new trial does not appear to have been excepted to as is required by law to secure a review of the order by the appellate court. Phillips v. State, 62 Fla. 77, 57 South. Rep. 341; Secs. 1693-4, Gen. Stats, of 1906. However, this being a capital case, the court has carefully examined the evidence, and while the members of this court might not have found from the testimony a premeditated design to kill the deceased, it cannot be said on this record that there was no substantial evidence from which the jury might lawfully have inferred the particular premeditated design that is an essential element of the capital offense charged. This may be a case for favorable consideration by the Board of Pardons, who have the power of commutation, but this court has no such power and must act only on the legal aspect of the case as shown by this record under the rules of law applicable to appellate courts.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1916)…roper bill of exceptions. Manatee County State Bank v. Wade, 56 Fla. 492, 47 South. Rep. 927; Thomas Bros. Co. v. Price & Watson, 56 Fla. 854, 48 South. Rep. 262; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429, 39 South. Rep. 183; Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377, 61 South. Rep. 975; Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42, 43 South. Rep. 430; Coleman v. State, 43 Fla. 543, 30 South. Rep. 684; Davis v. State, 47 Fla. 26, 36 South. Rep. 170; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 51 Fla. 211, 41 [*232] South. Rep. 194; Gilbert v. State,…
-
Henry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146 (Fla. 1914)…th assignment, which is based upon the denial of the motion, for a new trial, for the reason that such ruling was not excepted to. Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42, 43 South. Rep. 430; Phillips v. State, 62 Fla. 77, 57 South. Rep. 341; Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377, 61 South. Rep. 975. The remaining assignment that the judgment was contrary to law has been disposed of in our discussion of the other assignments. Having found no reversible error, the judgment must be affirmed. Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Whitf…
-
Smithie v. State, 88 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1924)…ourt, therefore, would not consider an assignment of error based upon the probative force of the evidence. See Schmids v. Tampa Pub. Co., 72 Fla. 571, 73 South. Rep. 593; Florida Power Co. v. Cason, 79 Fla. 619, 84 South. Rep. 921; Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377, 61 South. Rep. 975. The eleventh and twelfth assignments of error are therefore not well taken. There is no basis in the record for the assignment of error numbered two because the question to which objection was interposed was not answered and [*…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Phillips v. State, 62 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1911)