ALFRED TOWNSEND, 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.
Alfred Townsend was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and granted a new trial, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the essential elements of premeditated design to effect death and the identity of the perpetrator.
The conviction for murder in the first degree is reversed and a new trial is granted because the evidence was insufficient to establish premeditated design to effect death and the identity of the person who committed the offense.
“to sustain which, on this record, there must be facts and circumstances adduced in the evidence from which the jury may lawfully have drawn an inference that the alleged homicide was "perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of" a human being”
Establishes the essential requirement that evidence must support an inference of premeditated design to sustain a murder in the first degree conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTownsend was indicted for murder in the first degree, charged with inflicting mortal wounds from a premeditated design to effect the death of the dece…
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 To Effect Death cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree by inflicting mortal wounds “from a premeditated design to effect the death of” the deceased the plaintiff in error was found ‘ ‘ guilty of murder in the first degree” and recommended to the mercy of the court, and under the statute was sentenced to life imprisonment. 'While the sentence is to life imprisonment, the conviction is of murder in the first degree, to sustain which, on this record, there must be facts and circumstances adduced in the evidence from which the jury may lawfully have drawn an inference that the alleged homicide was “perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of” a human being.
Where a verdict of murder in the first degree is assailed in the appellate court on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, facts and circumstances from which the jury could have found all the essential elements of the crime alleged must appear from the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions and incorporated in the duly certified transcript of the record, or a new trial will be granted. Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12, 44 South. 719.
Premeditated design to effect death is an essential element of the crime of murder in the first degree, and where the evidence offered is insufficient to establish this element of the crime, a judgment upon a verdict finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree will be reversed. Richardson v. State, 80 Fla. 634, 86 South. Rep. 619; Smithie v. State, 84 Fla. 498, 94 South. Rep. 156.
In a conviction for murder in the first degree, where the evidence as to the identity of the accused as being the guilty party is not satisfactory, a new trial should be granted. Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 South. Rep. 565; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 South. Rep. 502; Davis v. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 South. Rep. 450; Watson v. State, 85 Fla. 383, 95 South. Rep. 861; Asher v. State, 90 Fla. 75, 105 South. Rep. 140. See also Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 South. Rep. 618.
In view of the nature of the evidence as to the identity of the person who committed the offense and as to premeditated design, a new trial should be granted and it is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Strum, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Lowe v. State, 154 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1944)…7 Fla. 768, 189 So. 21; Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323; Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 973, 110 So. 528; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend v. State, 95 Fla. 139, 116 So. 7; Coker v. State, 83 Fla. 672, 93 So. 176; Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716; Davis v. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 So. 450. The judgment appealed from is reversed and a new trial awarded. BROWN, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur. BUFORD,…
-
Smith v. State, 132 So. 840 (Fla. 1931)…element of the offense was not satisfactory. See Nims vs. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller vs. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528; Ming vs. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt vs. State, *Page 1069 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend vs. State, 95 Fla. 139, 93 So. 176; Knowles vs. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716; Davis vs. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 So. 450. " Under authority of the opinion in that case, and those cited therein, we feel that justice demands a reversal of the judgment in this case, because…
-
Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1932)…upon authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 Sou. 565; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 Sou. 528; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 Sou. 618; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 Sou. 502; Townsend vs. State, 95 Fla. 139, 116 Sou. 7; Coker vs. State, 83 Fla. 672, 93 Sou. 176; Knowles vs. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 Sou. 716; Davis vs. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 Sou. 450. It is so ordered. Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J.J., concur. Davis, J., disqualifie…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1915)
- Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1913)
- Reuben Davis and Rachel Smith v. State, 76 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1918)
- Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1925)
- Nat Richardson v. State, 80 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1920)
- Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1907)
- Asher v. State, 90 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1925)
- Graham v. Graham, 79 So. 450 (Ala. 1918)
- Smithie v. State, 84 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1922)
- Watson v. State, 85 Fla. 383 (Fla. 1923)