WILLIE NOWLING, 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 manslaughter conviction, finding sufficient evidence and proper admission of a confession. The court also found no error in the denial of a requested jury charge.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the confession was obtained in compliance with legal rules, and no error was committed in refusing the requested jury charge.
“The record has been examined and the evidence found ample to support the judgment.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Nowling was convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Walton County and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed the conviction…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*368] Per Curiam.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Walton County and was sentenced to a term of twenty years in the State penitentiary. He comes here by writ of error seeking a reversal of the judgment below alleging: (a) the insufficiency of the evidence; .(b) the illegality in which a confession was obtained from the plaintiff in error which was used in evidence, and (c) denial of charge number four requested by defendant.
The record has been examined and the evidence found ample to support the judgment. It is not made to appear that the confession obtained from the plaintiff in error was not.secured in compliance with the rule announced in Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So.'R. 483. No error was committed in the refusal of the trial court to give charge number four requested by defendant.
The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.