WILLIE C. WALDEN, 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 Walden was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting and killing a woman during a barroom altercation. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that Walden's conduct—shooting at the victim who was attempting to flee—demonstrated an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind.
The conviction for second-degree murder was affirmed. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Walden's conduct constituted an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, satisfying the elements of second-degree murder.
“The verdict arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Inman v. State, 139 Fla. 789, 191 So. 12; San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 327; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24. At this stage of the proceedings, all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the verdict.”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence—the verdict is presumed correct and ambiguities resolved in its favor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a "juke-joint" brawl, Walden and the deceased became involved in an altercation and separated. As Walden approached the front door to leave, he…
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 Depraved Mind Regardless Of Human Life cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant was informed against for the offense of second degree murder. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty, adjudicated and sentenced accordingly. He has prosecuted this appeal and preserved for review solely the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
The verdict arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Inman v. State, 139 Fla. 789, 191 So. 12; San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 327; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24. At this stage of the proceedings, all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the verdict. See: Cameron v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 864; Boyd v. State, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 632; Crum v. State, supra.
This was a typical “juke-joint” brawl in which the deceased and the appellant became involved in an altercation and, after they had separated, the appellant proceeded to leave the premises by the front door. When he approached the door, he drew a dangerous weapon, to wit: a 38 Colt Automatic, and discharged it at the deceased, striking her in the head and killing her in-i stantly. At this time, the deceased was some distance from the appellant and attempting to leave the premises by a rear door. She was not threatening the appellant and was, in fact, attempting to get away from him. From the pictures which were introduced into evidence, it appears that the “juke-joint” consisted of a one-story rectangular building with a door at either end. Almost at the rear of the building, there was a bar and a gate separating it from the public area which had, within it, a pin ball machine, a juke box and a pool table. As indicated, after the parties separated the appellant backed towards the front door, passed the pin ball machine, the juke box and the pool table, and then discharged the dangerous weapon at the deceased while there were other persons present and without any immediate provocation.
Such conduct on the part of the appellant was sufficient for the jury to find that his conduct amounted to an act imminently dangerous to another, and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict [see: Rivers v. State, 75 Fla. 401, 78 So. 343; Bega v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 100 So.2d 455; Darty v. State, Fla. App.1964, 161 So.2d 864], and same will not be disturbed.
The verdict, adjudication and sentence here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and SACK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Rivers v. State, 75 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1918)
- Fratello v. State, 154 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Boyd v. State, 122 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Inman v. State, 139 Fla. 789 (Fla. 1939)
- Kroetz v. Quinn, 100 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)