MALLORY RIGGINS, ALIAS MALLIE RIGGINS, 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, finding sufficient evidence and no material procedural errors despite the defendant's claims of accidental shooting and improper evidence admission.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the first-degree murder conviction. No material procedural errors occurred, and the evidence did not necessitate a charge on third-degree murder.
“Upon an indictment for murder in the first degree by premeditated design to affect her death, the plaintiff in error was convicted of the murder of his wife as charged, and took writ of error, presenting as errors the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the rulings of the court on the admissibility of evidence adduced at the trial and the failure of the court to charge the jury upon the crime of murder in the third degree.”
This quote outlines the charges, conviction, and the specific errors raised on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 4 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 for fatally shooting his wife. The defense admitted the shooting but claimed it was an acc…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Upon an indictment for murder in the first degree by fatally shooting from a premeditated design to affect her death, the plaintiff in error was convicted of the murder of his wife as charged, and took writ of error, presenting as errors the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the rulings of the court on the admissibility of evidence adduced at the trial and the failure of the court to charge the jury upon the crime of murder in the third degree.
There was no request for a charge on murder in the third degree, and the evidence adduced did not require a charge upon that degree of murder. The fatal shooting was admitted and was sought to be excused on the theory of accident, but the evidence did not require such a finding. Evidence admitted over objection could not under the admissions of the defendant have been harmful even if error, and there is ample basis for the finding of murder in the first degree.
Counsel for the plaintiff in error has forcefully presented the exceptions taken, but no material errors of pro cedure appear, and tbe facts in evidence fully warrant tbe conviction.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.