LEWIS WATERMAN
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 first-degree murder conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish premeditated design. The court found that the defendant's actions, including retrieving a pistol and shooting the unarmed victim multiple times, demonstrated a clear intent to kill.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to establish premeditated design. The court held that the defendant's actions demonstrated a clear intent to kill.
“The evidence shows that the homicide was neither a justifiable homicide nor an excusable homicide.”
Establishes that the killing did not fall under any legal justifications or excuses.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Lewis Waterman, shot and killed an unarmed man. The altercation occurred after Waterman saw the deceased arguing with a woman in Waterm…
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 judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree with recommendation to mercy.
The only question presented for our consideration is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to establish the element of premeditated design. It will serve no useful purpose to quote or discuss the evidence. The evidence shows that the homicide was neither a justifiable homicide nor an excusable homicide. The deceased was unarmed^ The accused, after seeing the deceased in altercation with a woman, the housekeeper of the accused, in the yard of the accused, went into his house, procured his pistol, returned to the scene of the altercation between deceased and the woman and shot the deceased six times in the body inflicting death. At least five of the shots were in the back. The jury was justified in reaching the conclusion that when accused went into the house and got his pistol he did so with the intent and design to shoot and kill the deceased, which he did immediately on returning with the pistol; that *245there was a premeditated design.to kill entertained by him from the time he got his pistol until he had accomplished! the death of the deceased as above stated.
The judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
City of Winter Haven v. State, 125 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1936)…ate v. Sammons, 62 Fla. 303, 57 So. 196; Nabb v. Andreu, 89 Fla. 414, 104 So. 591; P’Pool, et al., v. State, ex rel., Attorney General, 93 Fla. 378, 112 So. 59; Ex Parte Lewis, 101 Fla. 624, 135 So. 147; State, ex rel. Crim, v. Juvenal, 121 Fla. 69, 163 So. 569; Sparkman v. County Budget Commission, 103 Fla. 242, 137 So. 809. The provisions of the Act passed upon in the P’Pool case is from a legal standpoint practically identical with the provisions of Chapter 11301. To apply a separate rule to the two [*4…
-
Snipes v. State, 154 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1944)…ng, [*271] if then in pursuance of that purpose and intent he kills another human being, he is guilty of murder in the first degree. See Douglas v. State, 152 Fla. 63, 10 So. (2nd) 731; Madison v. State, 138 Fla. 467, 189 So. 832; Waterman v. State, 121 Fla. 244, 163 So. 569, and many other cases. The established rule as to premeditated design supra has been applied by this Court to the adduced facts in many cases. We have held that the facts adduced by the State in the following cases, among many others,…
-
THE City OF Coral Gables v. Crandon, 157 Fla. 71 (Fla. 1946)…or made to fit some particular county or subject, and no other county or subject could be reasonably expected to be governed by them. Levine, State, ex rel. v. Bailey, et al., 124 [*74] Fla. 241, 168 So. 12, Crim, State, ex rel Juvenal, 119 Fla. 86, 163 So. 569. Section one of chapter 22935, provides that the Board of County Commissioners of each county having a population of more than 260,000 according to the last Federal census is authorized and empowered to establish water conservation districts within…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence