LUKE MCCALL
v.
STATE
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.
Luke McCall was convicted of manslaughter for fatally shooting and cutting the throat of the deceased. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that although trial errors existed in the jury instructions and refusal of special charges, the evidence of guilt was clear and no fundamental rights were violated.
The conviction should be affirmed because any errors were harmless given ample evidence that death resulted from both the shooting and cutting, the evidence of guilt was clear, and no fundamental rights of the accused were violated.
“If there was error in denying defendant's motion to require the State to elect on whether it would rely on proof of the shooting or cutting of deceased's throat, as the proximate cause of death, it was rendered harmless by the fact that there was ample evidence produced by the State from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that death resulted from a concurrence of the shooting and cutting with a knife specifying in the indictment.”
Establishes the harmless error doctrine—any error in denying the election motion was harmless due to sufficient evidence of guilt.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuke McCall shot the deceased three times and then cut his throat while the victim was prostrate on the ground and helpless. The indictment charged mu…
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 Proximate Cause Of Death cases and more on FLexlaw
Luke McCall was convicted in the Circuit Court of Madison County of manslaughter and sentenced therefor to six years confinement in State prison. The evidence in the case shows that defendant shot deceased three times and that while deceased was prostrate on the ground a.nd helpless, that he then cut his throat. The indictment charged murder in the first degree by shooting and cutting, the charge of murder being stated in only one count in the indictment. The defendant admitted the killing, but claimed the right to' be acquitted on the ground of self defense..
If there was error in denying defendant’s motion to require the State,to, elect on whether it would rely on proof of the shooting or cutting of deceased’s throat, as the proximate cause of death, it was rendered harmless by the fact that there was ample evidence produced by the State from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that death resulted from a concurrence'-pf- the shooting and cutting with a knife specifying in the indictment.
■ , The trial judge gave the jury what was perhaps his usual '“stereotyped” form of jury charge which embraces some abstract statements of homicide law not applicable to the •facts shown in the present case. Likewise the court refused one or more special charges requested by defendant which, undoubtedly, out of the abundance of caution to safeguard the defendant’s rights, might have been more properly given than refused under the circumstances' appearing at the trial.
*471But a consideration of the entire record shows that the evidence of guilt is clear, and that no fundamental rights of the accused were violated. Therefore, the conviction, which is of a lesser degree of homicide than the evidence would have sustained, should not be reversed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis and Bufobd, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cornelius v. State, 49 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1950)…antial rights of the accused and that the introduction of improper or inadmissible evidence must be prejudicial in order to warrant a reversal. Salter v. State, 152 Fla. 284, 10 So. 2d 809; Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764; McCall v. State, 113 Fla. 469, 152 So. 19; Thomas v. State, 96 Fla. 243, 118 So. 22; Fouts v. State, 101 Fla. 1248, 133 So. 81; Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713. In determining whether the error of which complaint is made was…
-
Matera v. Buchanan, 192 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…ty Insurance Co. v. State, 1956, Fla., 86 So. 2d 156. Bail should not be fixed in so excessive an amount as to preclude the probability of the accused’s being able to furnish it. See Mendenhall v. Sweat, supra; Harrison v. Stone, 1934, 113 Fla. 471, 152 So. 19. In a habeas corpus proceeding the petitioner assumes the burden of a moving party. The applicant for a writ of habeas corpus must first show by evidence or affidavit probable cause to believe that his restraint is illegal if a writ is to issue. Wo…
-
Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 659 (Fla. 1934)…the State Constitution. The 'Circuit Judge having determined that the petitioner was entitled to bail was then bound by the Constitution to fix bail in a not excessive amount. See Harrison v. Stone, Sheriff, opinion filed January 8, 1934, reported 152 Sou. 19. The record in this case shows thát the State Attorney of the Fourth Judicial Circuit joined counsel, Joseph S. Wilensky, who appeared for the petitioner and moved the court to admit the petitioner to bail. The record shows that the State Attorney…