SHELBY WISE, ALIAS SHEBBY WISE, 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, holding that there was substantial evidence of premeditation despite the altercation preceding the fatal stabbing.
Yes, the court held that the jury was warranted in finding that the fatal cutting was done from a premeditated design to effect the death of the decedent.
“No particular length of time is required within . which a premeditated design to effect death may be formed and acted upon; and in this case the jury were warranted in finding that the fatal cutting in the neck and back was done from a premeditated design to effect the death of the decedent.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning regarding the sufficiency of evidence for premeditation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe decedent and the accused argued and drank whiskey together. The decedent struck the accused with a bottle, and the accused then pursued and fatall…
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, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree and on writ of error contends in effect merely that there is no substantial evidence that the homicide was committed from a premeditated design to effect the death of the decedent as alleged.
There is substantial evidence that after midnight and just before the homicide the decedent and the accused, after drinking from a bottle of whiskey, uttered angry words toward each other at the home of a woman with whom the accused associated, that on leaving the house at the command or request of the accused, the decedent struck the accused on the head with a whiskey bottle; that the decedent ran followed by the accused who cut the decedent in the neck and back resulting in the death. No particular length of time is required within . which a premeditated design to effect death may be formed and acted upon; and in this case the jury were warranted in finding that the fatal cutting in the neck and back was done from a premeditated design to effect the death of the decedent.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
. Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buchanan v. State, 95 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1928)…t is as much premeditation if it entered into the mind of the guilty agent a moment before the act as if it entered years before.” See Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 South. Rep. 251; Lowe v. State, 90 Fla. 255, 105 South. Rep. 829; Wise v. State, 69 Fla. 260, 67 South. Rep. 871. The testimony of Asa Mathews was not inconsistent with the idea of an unlawful assault by the defendant. In answer to the question: “Did you see the shooting?” he replied: “I saw the man with the hat on shoot Mr. Buck.” He test…
-
Mose Douglas v. State, 152 Fla. 63 (Fla. 1942)…berate purpose and intent to kill another human being, if then in pursuance of that purpose and intent he kills another human being, he is guilty of murder in the first degree.” The authorities sustain- the instructions as given. See Wise v. State, 69 Fla. 260, 67 So. 871; Richardson v. State, [*67] 80 Fla. 634, 86 So. 619; Townsend v. State, 95 Fla. 139, 116 So. 7; Powell v. State, 93 Fla. 756, 112 So. 608; Waterman v. State, 121 Fla. 244, 163 So. 569; Madison v. State, 138 Fla. 467, 189 So. 832, and man…
-
Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798 (Fla. 1939)…hots are fired. See Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 11 So. 550; Stokes v. State, 54 Fla. 109, 44 So. 759. We think the premeditated design or intent to kill was a question to be determined by the jury under appropriate instructions. See Wise v. State, 69 Fla. 260, 67 So. 871; Green v. State, 93 Fla. 1076, 113 So. 121. It is next contended that the evidence 'adduced is insufficient to support the verdict of murder in the first degree with recommendation' for mercy. It cannot be overlooked that conflicts and…