DARIUS W. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Johnson, a police officer, was convicted of manslaughter after shooting a woman during an alleged attempt to collect a debt. On appeal, Johnson challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction, but the court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence of all essential facts supported the jury's verdict and that a reasonable jury could have found the verdict based on all evidence presented.
“an appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is substantial evidence of all the essential facts”
Establishes the standard of review for insufficiency of evidence claims on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson, an armed police officer, went to the deceased's residence in the afternoon to collect a debt. While a companion was in another room, 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 Intoxication Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of the crime of manslaughter. The sole issue presented for determination on the appeal is the sufficiency •of the evidence to support the judgment •of the trial court. The Supreme Court of Florida has adhered to the principle that .an appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is substantial evidence of all the essential facts. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485; Powell v. State, 63 Fla. 34, 57 So. 609; Middleton v. State, 63 Fla. 24, 58 So. 225; Lancaster v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 643. 'The guiding principle controlling is whether as reasonable men the jury could have found the challenged verdict from all the ■evidence adduced. Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120.
The admitted facts are that the appellant ■was a police officer and while on duty and armed he went to the residence of the deceased to collect a debt she owed him. He .arrived at the home of the deceased at approximately three-thirty in the afternoon. ’While a woman companion of the deceased "was in the next room making a phone call the deceased was shot. It is admitted that the appellant’s gun shot the deceased.
The appellant testified that the deceased was accidentally shot when she tried to take his gun away from him. As a police officer and as a former member of the United States Marine Corps he was familiar with the procedure used to disarm a person. This is a matter of defense upon which the jury passed. Between ten-thirty in the morning and one-thirty or two o’clock in the afternoon the appellant consumed “the major portion” of a half pint of whiskey. In addition there was other evidence that the appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor to such an extent that his judgment was impaired at the time of the shooting. We do not find that the trial court erred in its refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant or in its denial of his motion for a new trial based upon insufficiency of the evidence.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Getsie v. State, 193 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 873. From my examination of the record, using these rules and in the light of the further comments herein made, I am unable to find any basis for disturbing the judgment of conviction. See Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 180; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 351. The fatal happenings are reflected in a written confession which was given by the defendant on the same day and immediately following the shooting. This confession was admitted in evidence. The defend…
-
Trimble v. State, 102 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…t the State present an eyewitness to the actual striking of the blow. Nor is it necessary that every possibility other than the guilt of the defendant be eliminated. See Overstreet v. State, 143 Fla. 794, 197 So. 516; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 180; Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 259 S.W. 2d 1; 3 Wharton’s, Criminal Evidence § 980 (12th Ed. 1955). Mr. William Arthur Browning, who discovered the body of the deceased, testified that as he drove out Bird Road extension at approximately 7:00 P…
-
Leon v. State, 186 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…84. Upon reviewing the record, we find that there was substantial evidence upon which the trial court, as the trier of facts, could have found that the element of intent had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 180; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So. 2d 763. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1944)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 155 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1944)
- Abe Middleton v. State, 63 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1912)
- Owens v. State, 63 Fla. 34 (Fla. 1912)