ISAAC FAUST, 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 reversed a conviction for second-degree murder, finding that the evidence did not clearly establish the elements required for that charge and that a jury instruction was misleading.
No, the evidence did not clearly show the defendant acted with a depraved mind, and the jury instruction was misleading. Therefore, the conviction for second-degree murder cannot stand.
“While the evidence may establish an unlawful homicide, a premeditated design of the defendant to effect the death of the deceased does not appear, as the verdict indicates; and the facts do not clearly show that the defendant shot deceased under the influence of “a depraved mind regardless of human life,” which is an element of murder in the second degree.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding the evidence insufficient for a second-degree murder conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Faust, was indicted for first-degree murder and convicted of second-degree murder. The evidence showed a dispute between Faust and the …
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 Depraved Mind Regardless Of Human Life cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— Faust was indicted for murder in the first degree and convicted of murder in the second degree. A writ of error was taken by the defendant.
The evidence shows -that the deceased and the defendant had a misunderstanding of some kind; that on the morning of the homicide the deceased was in the road near the house of -the defendant going to his work, when words of differences passed between them; that deceased returned to his home, got his gun and was again going along the road towards defendant’s house when he was fatally shot by the defendant before he got opposite defendant’s house and before deceased attempted to shoot, the defendant having gone into his house and gotten his gun as the deceased returned.
While the evidence may establish an unlawful homicide, a premeditated design of the defendant to effect the death of the deceased does not appear, as the verdict indicates; and the facts do not clearly show that the defendant shot deceased under the influence of “a depraved mind regardless of human life,” which is an element of murder in the second degree. A charge given that the jury should determine from the evidence,, “beyond a reasonable doubt” whether the defendant used all reasonable means in his power, consistent with hi's own safety, to avoid the danger and avert the necessity of killing the deceased, was cal culated to mislead the jury under the charges given and the evidence adduced.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor and West, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ammons v. State, 88 Fla. 444 (Fla. 1924)…put his hand under his coat, a fact unsupported by any evidence except the defendant’s statement and inferentially contradicted by other witnesses, is alone sufficient to support the indictment. The statement of facts in the case of Faust v. State, 78 Fla. 591, 83 South. Rep. 398, is not full enough to make an accurate comparison between that case and the one at bar although it does appear in the Faust ease that the deceased, who was going to his work, was in the road near the defendant’s house. An alterc…