JOHN BOWMAN
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.
John Bowman was convicted of manslaughter for shooting Tom Hayes during a gambling dispute at a jook in Princeton, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury properly found the homicide unlawful based on conflicting evidence, and that venue was sufficiently established without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury's finding that the homicide was unlawfully committed by Bowman was proper and will not be disturbed on appeal. The State need not prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt; a violent presumption arising from the evidence sustaining the venue as alleged is sufficient. The jury properly decided the aggressor and self-defense issues where conflicting evidence was presented.
“A killing is not justifiable or excusable if the defendant brought about the necessity therefor through his own wrongful act or without being reasonably free from fault in provoking the difficulty in which the killing occurred.”
Establishes the legal standard that a defendant cannot claim self-defense if he provoked the altercation through his own wrongful act.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 12, 1933, John Bowman shot and killed Tom Hayes with a pistol during an altercation that arose while the two were gambling together at a t…
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 Mutual Combat cases and more on FLexlaw
— John Bowman brings error to this Court from a conviction of manslaughter alleged to have been committed by him on the person of one Tom Hayes at a negro “jook” in Princeton, Florida, a small place in Dade County, •on February 12, 1933. The testimony is conflicting, but we find it is amply sufficient to warrant the finding of the jury based on it to the effect that the homicide charged was unlawfully committed by Bowman’s shooting Hayes with a pistol, as the result of an altercation arising while the two were gambling at the same table.
*30A killing is not justifiable or excusable if the defendant brought about the necessity therefor through his own wrongful act or without being reasonably free from fault in provoking the difficulty in which the killing occurred. Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 11 Sou. Rep. 550, 17 L. R. A. 705; Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 Sou. Rep. 865; Padgett v. State, 40 Fla. 451, 24 Sou. Rep. 145.
Where the issue of who was the aggressor, and the-causation of the killing in the course of a mutual combat, is presented for determination on conflicting evidence, it is-for the jury to decide whether or not under the circumstances shown in evidence the homicide was justifiable or excusable under the law relating to the right of self defense,, and the jury’s finding on that score will not be disturbed by an appellate court.
The Court has carefully read the transcript of the evidence in this case, and while it is observed that the State’s-proof of the date of the commission of a homicide and of the venue, was not made in such clear, direct and positive-terms as could have been done, yet there is, nevertheless, in the record as a whole, a sufficient demonstration that deceased was killed on or about the date alleged in the information, and that the killing was done in Princeton, a small community which the jury and the court below must-have known from the evidence, as a matter of common knowledge deducible from it, was situate only in DadeCounty, Florida.
Venue need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. A violent presumption arising from the-evidence sustaining the venue as alleged, is sufficient. Low-man v. State, 80 Fla. 18, 85 Sou. Rep. 166.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
*31Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bess v. State, 146 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1941)…supra. The trial court heard and considered the motion for new trial and endorsed the verdict of the jury by denying new trial. On authority of our opinions and judgments in the cases of Johns v. State, 134 Fla. 358, 183 Sou. 732; Bowman v. State, 114 Fla. 29, 152 Sou. 739; Smith v. State, 129 Fla. [*564] 775, 176 Sou. 781, and Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 468, 194 Sou. 873, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered. Affirmed. Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J., concur.…
-
Jenner v. State, 159 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…ent in Dade County to commit the crime. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the lower court are reversed with directions to discharge the appellant from the cause. CARROLL, DONALD, Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur. . Bowman v. State, 114 Fla. 29, 152 So. 739 (1934); 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law, § 101 and eases cited therein. . Powell v. State, 132 Fla. 659, 181 So. 901 (1938). . F.S. Section 811.021, F.S.A., and 9 Fla. Jur., Criminal Law, § 100. . Cf. Davis v. State, 96 So. 2d 667 (Fla.App.…
-
Trask v. State, 253 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…rt v. State, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 596; Rhome v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 431; Rivers v. State, Fla.1969, 226 So. 2d 337; Addison v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 238; Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So. 2d 264; and Bowman v. State, 1934, 114 Fla. 29, 152 So. 739. See also F.S. § 933.19, F.S.A. and F.S. § 910.09, F.S.A. PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1892)
- Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1920)
- Lott M. Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1893)
- Padgett v. State, 40 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1898)