ALBERT ALLEN
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.
Albert Allen was convicted of murder in the second degree under an indictment charging murder in the first degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the trial court properly refused a requested jury instruction on self-defense.
The Court held that ample substantial evidence supported the murder conviction and that the trial court did not err in refusing the self-defense instruction, as the legal principles of self-defense were adequately covered in the general charge and in more accurate terms than the requested instruction.
“There is ample substantial evidence in the record, if believed by the jury, to warrant the verdict returned.”
Establishes the sufficiency of evidence standard and that the jury's verdict is supported by the record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen was charged with first-degree murder. The evidence at trial, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to support a conviction for second-degree m…
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 Self-Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error is to review a judgment of conviction of the offense of murder in the second degree under the indictment charging murder in the first degree. Plaintiff in error states two questions to be determined by this Court, as follows:
“First Question: That the testimony was insufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction. The court held ‘yes’ while it is contended to the contrary.
“Second Question: That the defendant’s requested charge Number Two should have been given. The court held ‘no’ while it is contended to the contrary.”
There is ample substantial evidence in the record, if believed by the jury, to warrant the verdict returned. It was the province of the jury to reconcile conflicting evidence and to believe that which they deemed worthy of belief and discard that which they did not believe worthy of belief. We must assume that the jury pursued that course in reaching the verdict.
*347The charge which the plaintiff in error insists should have been given, and the refusal of which it is contended constituted reversible error, was purported to be a charge on the law of self-defense. The legal principle enunciated in the charge was fully given by the,court in the general charge and we think that the charge as given in the general charge was couched in more accurate terms than was that which was requested. The requested charge was so couched as to make it appear that the court was convinced by the evidence of the existence of some material facts and was objectionable for that'reason also. See Blanton v. State, 52 Fla. 12, 41 Sou. 789.
We find no reversible error disclosed by the record and, therefore, the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P, J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.