RICHARD ZOW, 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.
Richard Zow was convicted of manslaughter for killing an old man with an axe after the victim pulled a pocket knife during a confrontation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict despite Zow's self-defense arguments.
The conviction for manslaughter is affirmed. Although the evidence contained some plausibility for a self-defense argument, the evidence was legally sufficient for the jury to find Zow guilty, as there were questions regarding whether Zow was reasonably free from fault in initiating the difficulty and whether a less violent response was available.
“The homicide is clearly shown, but there is some plausibility for the argument that the State's evidence tended strongly to show it was done in self-defense.”
Establishes that while the facts of the killing were established, self-defense was a viable argument that the court nevertheless found did not overcome the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZow and other men were assembled at a location when an elderly, intoxicated Black man arrived and scattered profanity indiscriminately. Though told th…
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 Reasonable Force cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Richard Zow was convicted, of manslaughter, and sentenced to the State’s prison for a term of one year. While there are forty-one assignments of error, they may be reduced as we read the brief for the plaintiff in error, to an attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence and a rather general criticism of the court’s charges.
The homicide is clearly shown, but there is some plausibility for the argument that the State’s evidence tended strongly to' show it was done in self-defense. We have given the evidence close scrutiny upon this phase of the argument, and yet feel the conviction may be affirmed.
There was evidence tending to prove that the person slain was an old negro, who was given to profanity when drinking, but was perfectly harmless; that he came to the place where Zow and other negroes were assembled, and scattered his profanity around generally, but impartially; that Zow was told he was harmless, but tried to frighten him and, run him' off; that the drunken old negro ran a short distance, then turned and pulled out a pocket knife, without opening it, whereupon Zow turned, ran a few steps, picked up an axe and split open the old, negro’s head. We think there were questions for the jury as to whether Zow was reasonably free from fault in the inception of the difficulty in. arousing the old drunkard’s ire, who had theretofore used only his tongue as a weapon, and as to whether a less violent assault might not reasonably have been used to avoid serious danger to Zow.
We find no fault with the charges of the court. Manslaughter is defined by a process of elimination and the court properly defined the higher degrees of unlawful homicide to enable the jury to know what constituted manslaughter, and we do not see that the court was needlessly verbose; in fact the charges appear all to have been such as have been frequently used and approved in this jurisdiction. In the absence of specific objection or criticism of the charges, we cannot be expected to analyze them now.
Other assignments are either entirely overlooked in the briefs or so lightly touched upon as to be considered abandoned, and require no comment.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur. Taylor, C. J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahlon Hulst v. State, 123 Fla. 315 (Fla. 1936)…the court defines the higher degrees of homicide, as manslaughter is defined by a process of elimination, and the court properly defined the higher degrees of unlawful homicide to enable the jury to know what constituted manslaughter. Zow v. State, 70 Fla. 214, 70 So. 18. Objection was also m^de to the following charge of the court. “This information is for manslaughter, and in order for you to understand the meaning of manslaughter, the court deems it proper to give you in charge, the definition of the…