JOHN METRIE, 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.
John Metrie was convicted of murder in the second degree after being indicted for first-degree murder in a case involving an altercation over a woman. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the defendant's uncontradicted testimony established circumstances that would justify the killing or at most constitute manslaughter.
A verdict of murder in the second degree cannot be sustained when the defendant testifies to an account of the killing that is uncontradicted and, if true, would have justified the act or at most constituted manslaughter.
“Where, in a prosecution for murder in the first degree, the defendant takes the stand as a witness and gives an account of the killing, in which he admits giving the fatal wound to the deceased, but states it to be under circumstances which, if true, would have justified the act, or, upon the most unfavorable view, made a case of manslaughter only, and there was no fact or circumstance in evidence nor testimony of witness to contradict the defendant's account of the transaction, a verdict of murder in the second degree will not be sustained.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Holton v. State that a second-degree murder conviction cannot stand when the defendant's uncontradicted testimony suggests justification or manslaughter at most.
Metrie was indicted for murder in the first degree arising from an altercation on the streets of Miami. The difficulty began and ended on public stree…
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 Uncontradicted Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case defendant in the court below, plaintiff in error here, was indicted charged with murder in the first degree. He was convicted of murder in the second degree.
The altercation out of which this prosecution grew appears to have been the result of the deceased having alienated the affections of the wife of the accused from the accused. The difficulty started and ended on the public streets of the city of Miami, but the record discloses no witnesses to the beginning of the difficulty or to the infliction of the fatal wounds, except the accused and the deceased.
There is no conflict in the testimony and the version of the beginning of the difficulty and the infliction of the wounds resulting in the death of the deceased as told by the accused as a witness in his own behalf is uncontradicted, and was the only evidence before the jury as-to these facts. In Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. R. 244, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Ellis, say: “Where, in a prosecution for murder in the first degree, the defendant takes the stand as a witness and gives an account of the killing, in which he admits giving the fatal wound to the deceased, but states it to have been under circumstances which, if true, would have justified the act, or, upon the most unfavorable view, made a case of manslaughter only, and there was no fact or circumstance in evidence nor testimony of witness to contradict the defendant’s account of the transaction, a verdict of murder in the second degree will not be sustained. ’ ’
On authority of the opinion in the case above cited, we think the judgment in this case should be reversed for' a new trial and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954)…eversed a' conviction of second-degree murder, after defendant testified to facts showing the pistol death was accidental and there was “no substantial evidence that in any way contradicted the testimony of the accused.” Likewise in Metrie v. State, 98 Fla. 1228, 1229, 125 So. 352, 353, we reversed a conviction of second-degree murder arising from an altercation on a public street where there was “no conflict in the testimony, and the version of the beginning of the difficulty and the infliction of the woun…
-
Cochran v. State, 547 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1989)…mony or statements to the police. Jaramillo; McArthur; Driggers v. State, 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1964); Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1954); Riley v. State, 40 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1949); Kelly v. State, 99 Fla. 387, 126 So. 366 (1930); Metrie v. State, 98 Fla. 1228, 125 So. 352 (1930); Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 816, 107 So. 245 (1925); Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244 (1924); Fudge v. State, 75 Fla. 441, 78 So. 510 (1918). See also discussion and cases collected in Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d…
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…egenation conviction reversed); Kelly v. State, 99 Fla. 387, 126 So. 366 (1930) (defendant’s trial testimony that he killed the deceased in a non-negligent accident not properly negated by state’s proof; murder conviction reversed); Metric v. State, 98 Fla. 1228, 125 So. 352 (1930) (defendant’s trial testimony that he justifiably killed the deceased in a love triangle altercation not properly negated by state’s proof; murder conviction reversed); Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244 (1924) (defendant’s t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1924)