ALFRED GATHERS
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.
Alfred Gathers was convicted of manslaughter after being indicted for murder in the first degree. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed three issues on writ of error, including the trial court's instruction regarding uncommunicated threats of the deceased and the sufficiency of evidence, and affirmed the conviction.
The trial court's charge regarding uncommunicated threats was proper. Uncommunicated threats are admissible only for the limited purpose of throwing light on the probable truth or falsity of other evidence regarding the deceased's actions at the time of the shooting to determine if those actions justified the defendant's use of force in self-defense. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the manslaughter conviction and was in fact sufficient to have sustained a conviction for a higher degree of homicide.
“In a case of this kind threats of the deceased person to kill or injure the defendant cannot be used to justify a claim of self-defense unless such threats were told to the defendant before the killing.”
States the foundational rule that only communicated threats can support a self-defense claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with murder in the first degree but convicted of manslaughter. Evidence was presented regarding actions and statements of th…
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 Homicide cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, convicted of manslaughter under indictment charging murder in the first degree, brings *759his case here for review on writ of error. He presents three questions, as follows:
“1. Did the Trial Court err in his charge to' the jury as to the evidence in reference to the actions and statements of the deceased shortly prior to her death which were in the nature of threats of the deceased to kill or injure the plaintiff in error?
“2. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain a verdict of manslaughter ?
“3. Does the record as a whole warrant a conviction of manslaughter ?”
The statement of questions as above quoted in nowise complies with amended Rule 20 and, therefore, we shall not discuss them in detail. See Croft v. State of Fla., 107 Fla. 724, 144 Sou. 663; Callaway v. State, 112 Fla. 599, 152 Sou. 429; Reese, et al., v. Levin, 124 Fla. 96, 168 Sou. 851; St. Andrews Bay Lbr. Co. v. Bernard, 102 Fla. 389, 135 Sou. 831.
That part of the court’s charge complained of was as follows:
“In a case of this kind threats of the deceased person to kill or injure the defendant cannot be used to justify a claim of self-defense unless such threats were told to the defendant before the killing.
“The Court has permitted evidence to go before you as to alleged actions and statements claimed to have been made by the deceased person shortly prior to her death.
“The purpose of such evidence is to throw such light as it may on the probable truth or falsity of other evidence as to the actions of the deceased person at the time of the alleged shooting in order to determine whether or not her actions were such as to justify the defendant in shooting her *760in self-defense under the law of self-defense just given to you.” ■ ■
We hold the charge to be without error. Uncommunicated threats are admissible - only for the purpose indicated in the court’s instruction here complained of. See Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 Sou. 835; Wilson v. State, 30 Fla. 234, 11 Sou. 556.
The record discloses' sufficient substantial evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. In fact, the evidence is amply sufficient to have sustained a verdict and judgment of a higher degree of homicide.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1891)
- Carmine Charles Robert Falco v. State, 407 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1981)
- Callaway v. State, 112 Fla. 599 (Fla. 1933)
- Miles Wilson v. State, 30 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1892)
- St. Andrews Bay Lumber Co. v. Bernard, 102 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1931)
- Reese v. Asher Levin, 124 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1936)
- Elbert Croft v. State, 107 Fla. 724 (Fla. 1932)