WILLIE TOMLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Willie Tomlin was convicted of manslaughter for shooting Roosevelt Moore in a juke joint. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, rejecting his argument that photographic evidence of the victim's wounds was improperly admitted as inflammatory and unduly prejudicial.
The court held that the photographs were competent evidence and admissible because they were pertinent to describing the probable circumstances of the shooting and bore directly on whether the defendant acted with a reckless mind beyond reasonable necessity, and because the black and white photographs were not gory or exceptionally shocking and depicted little more than a body with puncture marks where bullets entered.
“The photographs were competent as an aid to the state's witness in his description of the probable circumstances of the shooting.”
Establishes that photographs of the victim's wounds were admissible to assist medical testimony about the shooting's circumstances and the defendant's mental state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Tomlin shot Roosevelt Moore multiple times with a pistol in a negro juke joint in Riviera Beach, Florida. Medical testimony established the dec…
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 Inflammatory Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant Willie Tomlin was: charged with second degree murder of Roosevelt Moore by shooting him with a pistol in a negro “juke joint” in Riviera Beach, Florida. The defendant appeals judgment of conviction consequent upon jury verdict finding him guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. There were some testimonial conflicts which were competently resolved by the jury, and we find no basis for holding the verdict contrary to the evidence.
Defendant’s prime contention is that the trial court erred in permitting certain photographs of the body of the deceased to be introduced in evidence. The photographs were offered in conjunction with a doctor’s testimony as to where the shots entered the body, the angle of entry and the number of shots fired. The doctor testified that the deceased was shot four times; that the first shot entered the chest and the remaining shots probably were fired as or after the body fell to the floor. The defendant submits that such matters were not in issue and that the photographs were unnecessary, unduly inflammatory and prejudicial to a fair trial.
The state submits that the photographs were pertinent not merely to the fact of death but also bore directly on the question of the number and timing of the shots in relation to the question of whether or not the defendant acted beyond the limits of reasonable necessity under the circumstances; or, in short, whether or not the defendant’s acts were so circumstanced as to be indicative .of a mind reckless of human life. We agree that the photographs were competent as an aid to the state’s witness in his description of the probable circumstances of the shooting. See Darty v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 864, 871; Wilkins v. State, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 129; Leach v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 329; Cullaro v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 40. Moreover, we have examined the protested ex*746hibits and find that the black and white photographs are not g'ory or exceptionally-shocking to a person of normal sensibilities since they depict little more than a body with puncture marks where the bullets entered. See e. g. Baugus v. State, Fla. 1962, 141 So.2d 264, 268 and cases therein cited; Cullaro v. State, supra.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDREWS, J., and McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ronny A. Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…miner of Dade County, as to the cause of death, the location and characteristics of the wounds, and the position of the body in reference to the physical make-up of the room. See Pressley v. State, 261 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Tomlin v. State, 167 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Notwithstanding appellant’s offer to stipulate to the murder, the position of the body, etc., the testimony of the witnesses, [*783] when combined with the corroborative photographs, aided the state in showing that Zamora’s slayi…
-
Dillen v. State, 202 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…s does not depend upon whether the objects depicted could be described by testimony but whether they would be useful in enabling the witness to better describe and the jury to better understand the testimony concerned. Tomlin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 745; Cullaro v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 40. In Belger v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 574, it was held that photographs are admissible if they tend to illustrate or explain the testimony of the witnesses or if they may have been of assistanc…
-
Cora Lee Edwards v. State, 414 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…f the injuries resulting in death. Dillen v. State, 202 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), cert. dismissed, 209 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1968). See also Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 472 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1979); Tomlin v. State, 167 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). At trial, the medical examiner testified that Ms. Curry died from massive bleeding caused by perforated puncture wounds to the arm, chest, and abdomen. The medical examiner, using photographs of the victim for identification, id…
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
- Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Cullaro v. State, 97 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Wilkins v. State, 155 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1963)