JIM RUSSELL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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.
Jim Russell, a Black man, was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting P. D. Williams in Taylor County, Florida in 1924. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to support a murder charge and concluding the verdict was based on factors outside the evidence presented.
The conviction for murder in the first degree is reversed because the evidence is clearly insufficient to support it. The facts show the defendant shot the deceased under circumstances that demonstrated neither premeditated design to kill nor an unlawful killing, and there was no evidence contradicting the defendant's self-defense account.
“the conclusion is inescapable that the verdict returned was based upon or largely influenced by something outside the evidence”
The Attorney General's conclusion, adopted by the court, that the conviction was not supported by the evidence presented
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 16, 1924, Russell arose early in heavy fog to go to work. He saw what appeared to be a crouching figure near his fence, retrieved a pistol…
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
Per Curiam.
— Jim Russell, a negro, was indicted for the murder of. P. D. Williams in Taylor County on December 16, 1924, and was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree on June 26, 1925. He seeks a reversal of the judgment upon writ of error. There are several assignments of error based upon objections made by the state attorney and sustained to questions propounded to witnesses by defendant’s counsel, but the principal point presented in this case is the assignment which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.
The evidence in the case, which is presented by a bill of exceptions which sets it out both in narrative form and in the form of questions and answers, is clearly insufficient to sustain the charge of murder in the first degree. Our consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion reached by the Attorney General expressed in the brief submitted by him in this case, viz: that “the conclusion is inescapable that the verdict returned was based upon or largely influenced by something outside the evidence/ ‘
It is unnecessary to repeat the evidence in substance further than to say that the bill of exceptions discloses that the defendant shot and killed the deceased under circumstances which not only did not show upon defendant’s part a premeditated design to kill the deceased, but which did not show the killing to have been unlawful.
The defendant arose about daylight on the morning of December 16, 1924, to go to his work. There was a heavy fog and in the early morning light objects were indistinct. As the defendant was leaving his door he saw an object which seemed to be crouching just outside the fence. The defendant re-entered the house, procured a pistol and left the house by another door, as if to evade what he had seen. As he left the house he was hailed by the deceased, who ordered the defendant to approach him. The deceased then told the defendant that he had come to collect eight dollars then or take the defendant’s life. After some parley over the alleged debt the deceased asked the defendant if he had said his prayers for he was. going to kill him and with that declaration drew a pistol and leveled it on the defendant, who shot and killed the aggressor. The defendant then gave himself up to the authorities and voluntarily told them of the transaction.
There was no evidence in contradiction of the defendant’s account of the transaction, but upon the other hand several circumstances brought out by the state were corroborative of it. See Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 South. Rep. 244; Smithie v. State, 84 Fla. 498, 94 South. Rep. 156.
The judgment is reversed. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the Opinion.
Buford, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crockett v. State, 137 Fla. 450 (Fla. 1939)…been estranged and living a part for some days; that they had serious marital difficulties, controversies over certain property rights, and that each had threatened to kill the other. Counsel for plaintiff in error cite the case of Russell v. State, 91 Fla. 370, 107 So. 922, wherein it was held: “In the trial of one charged with crime where there is' no evidence in contradiction of the defendant’s statement of the transaction which exculpates him and there is evidence [*453] of facts corroborative of his…
-
Wilson v. State, 113 Fla. 475 (Fla. 1934)…was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree. He contends here that the evidence was' not sufficient to support a verdict of murder in the second degree, relying upon Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 Sou. 244, and on Russell v. State, 91 Fla. 370, 107 Sou. 922. The law as enunciated in neither of those cases is applicable here. In this case there was ample evidence from which the jury could have drawn the conclusion that the defendant did not act in self defense, but, on the other hand, tha…
Authorities Cited
- Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1924)
- Smithie v. State, 84 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1922)