W. J. HOWARD, 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.
W. J. Howard was indicted for assault with intent to murder but convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twelve months hard labor. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of every essential element of aggravated assault.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court found proof of every essential element of aggravated assault, providing ample basis for the verdict.
“the only question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict”
Identifies the sole issue on appeal presented by counsel for the plaintiff in error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoward and John Lott went to Tanner's home to take the intoxicated Howard to his bed. Upon reaching his home, Howard became angry, drew a revolver, an…
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 Aggravated Assault Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
— This case presents a single question. In his brief, counsel for plaintiff in error says, “the only question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.”
The indictment was for an assault with intent to murder. The verdict found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault and' he was sentenced to serve a term of twelve months at hard labor in the county jail.
From the evidence it appears that the defendant and John Lott, in whose buggy the two were riding, went to the home of Tanner, the person upon whom the al leged assault was made. The defendant was under the influence of liquor and Lott and Tanner proposed to take him home and put him to bed'. Undertaking to do so, the buggy in which he was seated was driven to his home, a distance of some 300 yards. Upon reaching his home the defendant, according to the State’s evidence, “seemed as though he got mad,” declared he was “getting raw,” that, he was “going to get rough,” and, drawing a revolver from his pocket, asserted that he was “going to' shoot,” and proceeded to do so. Thereupon Lott and Tanner immediately, and very naturally it would - seem, abandoned their purpose to put the defendant to bed. Tanner, suspecting that his presence was not desired, left the home of the defendant, walking “pretty peart,”, so he said, and when he had gone “about 30 steps” he heard a report of defendant’s pistol and heard the ball that was discharged from it pass over his head. He indicated in his evidence the distance but did not state how far the ball was from his head as it passed over him. The shooting occurred when it was “about dark.” Neither of the State witnesses saw the direction in which the defendant pointed his pistol as he fired, but one witness testified that defendant told him the next day that he shot at Tanner. The time and venue were proved. This in substance was the evidence in behalf of the State.
There was no proof of any ill feeling between the defendant and Tanner, and it appears that they -were apparently on friendly terms. But on the night of the commission of the alleged offense the defendant later went to the home' of Tanner, who had left home, and' cursed and fired his pistol several times while there.
The defendant admitted firing his pistol, but explained that he did so for the purpose of frightening Tanner as he was leaving. He admitted also that he fired his pistol again later after going over to Tanner’s home, but explained that he did so for the purpose of waking his (defendant’s) son who was there asleep.
As we view this evidence there is proof of every essential element of an aggravated assault, the offense for which the defendant was convicted. Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56, 43 So. 87; Peterson v. State, 41 Fla. 285; 26 So. 709. This being true, there is ample basis in the evidence for the verdict. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…, a wife was entitled to periodic alimony based upon her needs and her husband’s ability to pay. The next development in the law of alimony was the appearance of the doctrine of “special equity”. As early as 1919 in Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 So. 87 (1919), the Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion after noticing that the wife, mother of six children, had contributed generously in funds and by her personal exertion and industry through a long period of time to the acquisition and development of…
-
Rosalind E. Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071 (Fla. 1932)…of the bonds of matrimony, she is not required to incur the forfeiture of any of her already vested equitable property rights which were acquired by her while the matrimonial barque was sailing on smoother seas. See Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 Sou. Rep. 87; Taylor v. Taylor, 100 Fla. 1009, 130 Sou. Rep. 713. The provisions of Section 4987 O. G. L., 3195 R. G. S., to the effect that no alimony shall be granted to an adulterous wife do not preclude the ascertainment and allowance by the court of an amo…
-
Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001 (Fla. 1927)…ld work an undue hardship on complainant. If this situation should change in the future the amount allowed may be increased or diminished as in the judgment of the chancellor the faculties of the parties may suggest. Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 So. 87; Luthe v. Luthe, 12 Col. 421, 21 Pac. Rep. 467. The second cross assignment of error challenges the. order of the chancellor awarding the custody of the chil [*1008] dren to defendant and the third cross assignment challenges the order of the chanc…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pleas Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1907)
- Peterson v. State, 41 Fla. 285 (Fla. 1899)