TOM BROOKS
v.
STATE

Fla. | 1934-06-11
Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur., Davis, C. J., concurs specially., Brown, J., dissents.
115 Fla. 243 Florida Supreme Court (1934) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 156 So. 23
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction, rejecting the argument that the use of a stick as a weapon negated premeditation. The court found the evidence sufficient and the jury's verdict credible.


Holding

No, the use of a stick or club as a weapon does not inherently negate premeditated design for first-degree murder, especially when the jury finds it to be a deadly weapon as used in the specific circumstances.


Key Quotes

“It is contended that because the accused killed the deceased with a stick or club that this'is a circumstance which shows the lack of premeditated design. There is no merit in this contention.”

This quote establishes the core legal argument rejected by the court regarding the weapon used.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was indicted and convicted of first-degree murder. The defense claimed self-defense, but the State presented ample evidence supporting 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.


Opinion of the Court
Buford, J.

Buford, J.

In this case the plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree. The jury failed to recommend mercy.

The defense was based entirely upon the theory of self defense. The State supported the material allegations of the indictment by ample evidence. The jury evidently did not believe the statements of the defendant and they had little corroboration.

It is contended that because the accused killed the deceased with a stick or club that this'is a circumstance which *244shows the lack of premeditated design. There is no merit in this contention. Human beings were killing one another with sticks and clubs before knives and guns were ever invented. The club was the weapon of the primitive man and it is' as effective a weapon at close range today as it was in the earliest days of man’s existence on earth.

In this case the' weapon used was exhibited to the jury and they evidently found it to be a deadly weapon when used as the evidence showed it was used in this cause.

We have carefully examined the record and find no reversible error disclosed therein. The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.

Davis, C. J., concurs specially.

Brown, J., dissents.

Davis, C. J.

(concurring specially). — In view of the testimony of one witness in this case, whose testimony was evidently believed by the jury, I cannot say as a matter of law that the' verdict of first-degree murder was clearly erroneous. I therefore concur in affirming the judgment as rendered, but with the observation that it appears to me that all that the jury should have found on the evidence as a whole is a verdict of second-degree murder, which is what the evidence tends to prove as a matter of fa.ct, as I view it from an evidentiary standpoint only.

Brown, J.

(dissenting).—This was a fuss between two negroes of a rather sudden character. One negro took up a piece of 4’x 4 scantling which was lying on the ground, and struck the other negro in the head with it, from which lick the latter died. I do not think the evidence shows that was any premeditated design to kill.

Concurrence
Davis, C. J.

Davis, C. J.

(concurring specially). — In view of the testimony of one witness in this case, whose testimony was evidently believed by the jury, I cannot say as a matter of law that the' verdict of first-degree murder was clearly erroneous. I therefore concur in affirming the judgment as rendered, but with the observation that it appears to me that all that the jury should have found on the evidence as a whole is a verdict of second-degree murder, which is what the evidence tends to prove as a matter of fa.ct, as I view it from an evidentiary standpoint only.

Dissent
Brown, J.

Brown, J.

(dissenting).—This was a fuss between two negroes of a rather sudden character. One negro took up a piece of 4’x 4 scantling which was lying on the ground, and struck the other negro in the head with it, from which lick the latter died. I do not think the evidence shows that was any premeditated design to kill.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Shepard v. State, 259 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 2018)
    …(Fla. 1997) (metal pipe, baseball bat, and mop); Craig v. State , 168 So. 2d 747, 748 (Fla. 1964) (screwdriver); Nelson v. State , 97 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 1957) (ice pick); Brown v. State , 61 So. 2d 640, 641 (Fla. 1952) (hammer); Brooks v. State , 115 Fla. 243, 156 So. 23, 23 (1934) (sticks and clubs); Gray v. State , 44 Fla. 436, 33 So. 295 (1902) (a "large piece of scantling"). Accordingly, we recede from the holding in Houck that an object must be "commonly understood to be an instrument for combat" i…
  • Butler v. Borowsky, 120 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
    …rsonal expense, under the circumstances of this case, is not recoverable. See Weathersbee v. Dekle, 102 Fla. 1057, 136 So. 708; Kennedy v. Hancock, 108 Fla. 601, 146 So. 667; Security Land & Investment Company v. Ranger Realty Company, 115 Fla. 640, 156 So. 23. That portion of the judgment awarding costs is reversed, and the case remanded for the entry of an appropriate judgment for costs in accordance with the principles herein stated. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed in part,…
  • Smith v. City of Arcadia, 147 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1941)
    …ignity of the tax lien as fixed by the statute in relation to other liens and collateral interests.” This was reaffirmed in Hetch, et al., v. Wilson, 107 Fla. 421, 144 Sou. 886. In Security Land & Investment Co. v. Ranger Realty Co., 115 Fla. 641, 156 Sou. 23, we held: “If there are other outstanding State, county or city tax certificates against the property involved in this case, which certificates have not been brought into these proceedings and adjudicated, the only legal effect of their omission fr…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw