OMAR A. WILSON
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a change of venue.
1. Yes, there was ample evidence for the jury to conclude the defendant did not act in self-defense and killed the deceased without apparent danger. 2. No, the denial of the motion for a change of venue was not reversible error.
“The law as enunciated in neither of those cases is applicable here. In this case there was ample evidence from which the jury could have drawn the conclusion that the defendant did not act in self defense, but, on the other hand, that he shot and killed the deceased at and when he was in. [*476] no apparent danger of being assaulted or injured by the deceased.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for finding sufficient evidence to support the second-degree murder conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was indicted for first-degree murder and subsequently convicted of second-degree murder. He appealed, arguing that the evidence…
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 Change Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was indicted upon the charge of murder in the first degree and was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree. He contends here that the evidence was' not sufficient to support a verdict of murder in the second degree, relying upon Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 Sou. 244, and on Russell v. State, 91 Fla. 370, 107 Sou. 922.
The law as enunciated in neither of those cases is applicable here. In this case there was ample evidence from which the jury could have drawn the conclusion that the defendant did not act in self defense, but, on the other hand, that he shot and killed the deceased at and when he was in. *476no apparent danger of being assaulted or injured by the deceased.
His second contention is that the judgment should be reversed because the court denied his motion for change of venue. There is no material difference between this case in regard to that phase and to the case of Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. 466, 138 Sou. 385, and we think that on authority of the opinion and judgment in the Jeffcoat case, supra, the record discloses no reversible error in the denial in this case of the motion for a change of venue.
The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. Greene, 994 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…(1) requires notice to all interested parties and a hearing before a receiver is appointed. It is well established that courts are generally not warranted in appointing a receiver without notice. See, e.g., Leesburg Motor Co. v. Libal, 113 Fla. 742, 152 So. 16 (1934). [*373] Rule 1.620 requires compliance with the notice requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. Thus, incorporating rule 1.610 requirements, a receiver may only be appointed without notice if: (1) it appears from specific facts…
Authorities Cited
- Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1924)
- Elvin E. Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1931)
- Russell v. State, 91 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1926)