LEWIS DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1968-11-27
No. 68-119
ALLEN and MANN, JJ., concur.
216 So. 2d 87 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1968) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

Lewis Davis was convicted of manslaughter for the shooting death of O.C. Kirkwood following a dice game dispute in Sarasota County, Florida. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict despite Davis's denial of firing the fatal shot.


Holding

The court affirmed the manslaughter conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict based on Phillips's credible testimony that Davis fired at Kirkwood. The court upheld admission of the police officer's testimony regarding Miranda-compliant in-custody statements and the impeachment evidence regarding the prior dangerous weapons charge.


Key Quotes

“Under the testimony of Almond Phillips, which was directly contrary to that of Davis and Joe Dejournette, the jury could believe that the bullet fired by Davis toward Kirkwood as he ran around the car struck him in the front. They obviously did and therefore we believe there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of manslaughter.”

Establishes the court's standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and rationale for affirming the conviction based on credibility determinations made by the jury.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Davis and Kirkwood engaged in a dice game that resulted in an argument over a five-dollar bill. After Kirkwood refused to return the money and ran, Da…

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.


Opinion of the Court
LILES, Chief Judge.

LILES, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Lewis Davis, was charged in an information with murder in the second degree. He waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. At a trial by jury, he was found guilty of manslaughter. After pre-sentence investigation the trial judge adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years in the State prison.

Lewis Davis along with O. C. Kirkwood and witnesses, Almond Phillips, Jr., and Joe Dejournette, were engaged in a dice game in Sarasota County, Florida. An argument arose regarding a bet and O. C. Kirkwood grabbed a five dollar bill that Lewis Davis believed belonged to him. Davis demanded the return of the money but Kirkwood refused to return it. Kirk-wood then ran from the room being chased by Davis who had a drawn knife. Once on the street they encountered a patrolman and at the sight of the patrolman Kirk-wood returned the five dollar bill and they both went their separate ways.

Later in the evening Kirkwood’s body was found in the vicinity of his rooming house and reported to the police.

At the trial Almond Phillips testified that upon his leaving the dice game he encountered Kirkwood and informed him that upon Davis’ return to the dice game, he made the statement “let me go get something to kill that so and so.” He further testified that while he and Kirkwood were talking, with Kirkwood leaning on the car and he, Phillips, in the car, Lewis Davis approached the car from the bushes to the east of Phillips and Kirkwood, brandishing a pistol. Upon seeing the gun Kirkwood ran around the car and started running down the street to the north, with Davis firing as Kirkwood ran.

At the trial, Dejournette testified that he did not hear Davis make the statement regarding his getting something to kill Kirkwood with, nor did he see Davis fire any shots, although Davis did return to the dice game and remain there a few minutes.

Davis testified in his own behalf that he did not fire any shots at Kirkwood and in fact did not possess any kind of firearms and had not possessed a gun since he moved to Sarasota eighteen years ago. The medical examiner testified that he removed the lethal bullet from the chest of Kirkwood and that it appeared to be somewhat larger than a twenty-two caliber bullet. He also testified that he was not experienced in firearms. Upon this testimony, the case went to the jury after the denial by the trial judge of two motions for a directed verdict. This appeal followed.

The appellant, Lewis Davis, contests the sufficiency of the evidence to *89prove that he, in fact, killed O. C. Kirk-wood, and assigns as error the judge’s failure to grant the directed verdict. We must first decide if there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Under the testimony of Almond Phillips, which was directly contrary to that of Davis and Joe Dejournette, the jury could believe that the bullet fired by Davis toward Kirkwood as he ran around the car struck him in the front. They obviously did and therefore we believe there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict of manslaughter.

Appellant further says that the court committed error in allowing a police officer to testify as to certain statements made by the appellant at the in-custody interrogation. The officer testified that he warned appellant of his rights as outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Aside from that, the appellant made no confession and to the contrary denied any knowledge of the homicide except he did say that he would not kill anyone for five dollars and that he knew Kirkwood had been killed upon Church Street. These statements were made following a clear explanation of appellant’s rights.

Appellant also charges that the trial judge committed error when he allowed the prosecutor to bring out, on cross-examination, that appellant had been charged with the exhibition of a dangerous weapon. During appellant’s testimony he testified on several occasions that he had never owned firearms of any nature since he had been in Sarasota County. This interrogation was allowed for the purpose of impeachment and we believe it to be proper.

In substance, the jury could have and obviously did believe the testimony of Almond Phillips and we cannot disturb such finding. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

ALLEN and MANN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)
    …defendant's claim that she had fallen and injured herself). . Robertson's testimony that he was not familiar with the particular gun in this case is not the same as if he testified that he was not familiar with any guns at all. Cf. Davis v. State, 216 So. 2d 87, 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (witness's testimony on direct that he never owned any firearm opened the door to impeachment on cross examination by the witness's past charge of exhibition of a dangerous weapon).…
  • Bozeman v. State, 698 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
    …he state has the right to correct so that the jury will not be misled. See Brown v. State, 579 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Dodson v. State, 356 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hernandez v. State, 569 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Davis v. State, 216 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Allred v. State, 642 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Fletcher v. [*631] State, 619 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The “opening the door” concept is based on considerations of fairness and the truth-seeking function of a trial, w…
  • Mosley v. State, 739 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
    …he state has the right to correct so that the jury will not be misled. See Brown v. State, 579 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Dodson v. State, 356 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hernandez v. State, 569 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Davis v. State, 216 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Allred v. State, 642 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Fletcher v. State, 619 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The “opening the door” concept is based on considerations of fairness and the truth-seeking function of a trial, where cr…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw