JAMES KELLY, 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.
Kelly was convicted of murder in the second degree after being indicted for first-degree murder in the shooting death of his wife. The Florida Supreme Court reversed because the defendant's uncontradicted testimony established the death was an accidental discharge, which at most could constitute manslaughter, not second-degree murder.
A verdict of murder in the second degree cannot be sustained when the defendant testifies to facts showing the killing resulted entirely from an unforeseen accident, those facts if true would constitute excusable homicide or at most manslaughter, and there is no substantial contradicting evidence or testimony.
“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 which shows the same to have been the result entirely of an unforeseen accident and which facts as stated, if true, would constitute excusable homicide, or upon the most unfavorable view would show the homicide to have been the result of culpable negligence of the accused and, therefore, could constitute no higher degree of homicide than manslaughter, and there was no substantial fact or circumstance in the evidence nor testimony of witnesses to contradict the defendant's account of the transaction, a verdict of murder in the second degree should not be sustained.”
States the legal standard that a second-degree murder conviction cannot stand when the defendant's uncontradicted testimony establishes at most an accidental killing or manslaughter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKelly was indicted for first-degree murder in the death of his wife. At trial, Kelly testified that while removing a pistol from beneath his pillow in…
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 Excusable Homicide cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case the plaintiff in error was in-dieted and prosecuted .for murder in the first degree and was convicted of murder in the second degree. The deceased was the wife of the accused.
There was no eye-witness to the occurrence except the accused. He took the stand in his own behalf and testified to a state of facts which showed the death to be the result of an unfortunate accident in that the pistol was accidentally discharged by striking some part of the bed when the accused was removing the pistol from beneath his pillow on getting up from his bed in the morning. That the pistol so discharged inflicted the wound in the head of the deceased who was still lying in the same bed. There was no substantial evidence that in any way contradicted the testimony of the accused. There was no motive shown for the commission of an unlawful homicide. There was no testimony from which the deduction might be drawn that there was any cause or reason for the accused to have intentionally killed his wife. The rule enunciated by this Court in the case of Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. R. 244, and in Metrie v. State, opinion filed January 3, 1930, reported in 125 So. R. 352, may be applied to the instant case by saying: 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 which shows the same to have been the result entirely of an unforeseen accident and which facts as stated, if true, would constitute excusable homicide, or upon the most unfavorable view would show the homicide to have been the result of culpable negligence of the accused and, therefore, could constitute no higher degree of homicide than manslaughter, and there was no substantial fact or circumstance in the evidence nor testimony of witnesses to contradict the defendant’s account of the transaction, a verdict of murder in the second degree should not be sustained.
Having arrived at this conclusion, it is unnecessary to discuss assignments of error involving other questions.
The judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield and Brown, J. J., concur. Strum, J., concurs specially.
Strum, J.
(concurring specially) :
I concur in the judgment of reversal, but upon grounds other than those stated in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954)…degree; but the jury evidently was not satisfied .with the sufficiency of. the evidence offered by the state to justify a. vprdict of murder in the -first ■ degree.” ,, The holding in the above case was followed in Kelly v. State, 99 Fla. 387, 388, 126 So. 366, where we reversed 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 Metri…
-
Cochran v. State, 547 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1989)…to negate the defendant’s exonerating trial testimony 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 co…
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…conviction reversed); Free v. State, 142 Fla. 233, 194 So. 639 (1940) (defense testimony that the defendant was born of a white woman and was fathered by a white man, not negated by state’s proofs; miscegenation 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 testimo…
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)