L. D. PADGETT
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.
L. D. Padgett was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing of his wife. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's voluntary written confession, combined with circumstantial evidence, adequately proved the element of premeditated design required for first-degree murder.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Premeditation need not be express or positive but may be deduced from all facts attending the killing, and the voluntary confession combined with the circumstances of the crime adequately proved this element.
“It is well settled in this jurisdiction that in a trial for murder in the first degree, proof of premeditation need not be express or positive, but may be deduced from all the facts attending the killing.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving premeditation in first-degree murder cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePadgett's wife had left him before Christmas and was staying with her mother, keeping their two children there. On June 23rd, she spent the night at h…
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 Premeditated Design cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree without recommendation to mercy.
We have carefully examined basis for the several as*43signments of error and find no reversible error is made to appear.
It is strenuously contended thát the evidence is' not sufficient to prove the material element of premeditated design.
The main proof of the guilt of the accused is found in the written and signed confession of the accused, which is as follows:
“I, L. D. Padgett, having been told by the State Attorney that I do not have to make any statement unles's I want to, and that anything that I might say might be used against me, make the following voluntary statement about the killing of my wife, Daisy Lee Padgett: I have not been promised any reward or told that the making of this statement will help me in any way, but malee the same freely and voluntarily:
“My wife and I had been having a lot of trouble, she was staying with her mother and keeping our two children there and would not come to live with me. She left me just before Christmas. On Saturday night, June 23d, she spent the night at my place but would have nothing to do with me. She would not even let me kiss her. About daylight Sunday morning we started over to a girl’s house and then I guess we were going from there to her Mother’s. As we left she told me to bring the turpentine cutter along. I think she wanted it to sharpen some knives of her Mother’s. I put it in my pocket rolled up in a piece of paper. As we walked along the road we talked about the way she had been acting and one word led to another. I was pretty mad about it all and finally pulled the cutter out of my pocket and stabbed her in the back. I was walking along behind her then and she "did not see what I was doing. We had walked about a mile from home. She fell down after I stabbed her in the back, and then I cut *44her several times on the neck and once or twice in the stomach while she was laying down. She said “O, don’t do that” when I was cutting her. She then told me to meet her in heaven and said she wished she could have seen the children before she went. After that I drug her off the road a piece and she did not talk anymore but she kept gruntmg and making all kinds of noises' and pawing with her hands. When I left there she was still grunting.
“I picked up the things that were scattered around on the ground and carried them about a half mile away and threw them in a branch. This included some dresses, shoes, cloth, a hat and first one thing or another, that she had bought in town on the day before. I threw the cutter off in the bushes' near the branch. I went on back to the house and from there to my mother’s. I lay down across the bed and tried to sleep but it was too' warm. From there I went by my wife’s mother’s house and most of the folks were- not there. I saw a brother of my wife and my two children and my brother’s children. I did not go back by the place where I killed her.
“I did what I did before I thought and realized what I was doing, and what caus'ed me to do that was the way she was treating me after several times promising to do better.
“L. D. Padgett.
“State of Florida,
“Escambia County.
“Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3rd day of July, 1934.
“Emanual F. Johnson, Notary Public State of Florida at Large
“(Notarial Seal) ' - “State ex. 2”
The proof is adequate that this'confession was freely and voluntarily made. '
*45It is well settled in this jurisdiction that in a trial for murder in the first degree, proof of premeditation need not be express or positive, but may be deduced from all the facts attending the killing. Yates v. State, 26 Fla. 484-7 So. 880, Robinson v. State 69, Fla. 521-68 So. 649.
.The proof is amply sufficient to sustain the judgment and the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered. Affirmed.
Whitfield, C- J-, and Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collins v. State, 155 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1944)…nt of the details of the occurrence as shown by the evidence can serve no useful purpose. It is sufficient to say that the evidence when measured by rules enunciated in the cases of Crawford v. State, 146 Fla. 729, 1 So. (2nd) 713; Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42, 163 So. 291; Hasty v. State, 120 Fla. 269, 162 So. 910; Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798, 190 So. 259 and Williams v. State, 148 Fla. 88, 3 So. (2nd) 721, meets all requirements. The second and third questions challenge the action of the trial court i…
-
Jecy Crawford v. State, 146 Fla. 729 (Fla. 1941)…es v. State, 14 Fla. 499; Robinson v. State, 69 Fla. 521, 68 South. Rep. 649; 6 Ency. Evidence, p. 691.” That enunciation has been followed in Phillips v. State, 88 Fla. 117, 101 Sou. 204; Lowe v. State, 91 Fla. 255, 105 Sou. 829; Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42, 163 Sou. 291, and Forehand v. State, 126 Fla. 464, 171 Sou. 241. There appears in the record nothing which indicates that the jury disregarded the charge of the trial court in any respect. The jury just did not believe all of the testimony of defe…
-
Vicente Alicea Reyes v. State, 155 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…ion of the accused may be introduced into evidence after the proof of the homicide, to wit: the corpus delicti, even though the only facts or evidence which tend to establish the premeditation were contained in the confession. See: Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42, 163 So. 291. No error having been made to appear, the conviction, judgment and sentence here under review is affirmed. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yates v. State, 26 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1890)