CHARLIE WELLS, 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.
Charlie Wells was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his wife. On appeal, Wells challenged the validity of the grand jury that indicted him, argued insufficient evidence, objected to admission of blood-stained evidence, and sought review of the trial court's refusal to submit an insanity defense to the jury. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible errors.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds, holding that: (1) although Charlotte County's grand jury selection procedures were irregular, no miscarriage of justice resulted; (2) adequate evidence supported the jury's verdict; (3) the blood-stained evidence was properly admitted as relevant to establish blood type matching; and (4) the trial court properly refused to submit the insanity defense because there was no credible evidence of mental illness and the right-or-wrong test was clearly met.
“There being no miscarriage of justice shown, the fact that Charlotte County's procedures for selecting grand juries are not a fit model for emulation avails the appellant nothing”
Establishes that irregularities in grand jury selection do not constitute reversible error absent actual miscarriage of justice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharlie Wells was indicted for murdering his wife by a grand jury that included a member who had resided in Charlotte County for less than six months …
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Charlie Wells was indicted for the murder of his wife by a grand jury which included a resident of Charlotte County who had resided for a time in another county *228and had moved hack to Charlotte County-less than six months prior to the impanel-ling of the grand jury, which had been chosen from a list irregularly compiled by the Charlotte County Commission. Wells was convicted of murder in the second degree. On appeal he alleges the invalidity of the grand, jury as reversible error, the insufficiency of evidence, admission of blood-stained undergarments of the victim and failure of the trial court to submit his defense of insanity to the jury.
There being no miscarriage of justice shown, the fact that Charlotte County’s procedures for selecting grand juries are not a fit model for emulation avails the appellant nothing, for reasons expressed better than we can by Mr. Justice Thornal in Leach v. State, 132 So.2d 329 (1961).
There was adequate evidence on which the jury could have formed its conclusion. Specifically objected to on this appeal was the introduction of the victim’s underpants and sheet. They were introduced to show that the blood stains thereon and those on appellant’s jacket found in the home where the body lay were of type A blood, while the defendant’s blood was type O. This is relevant evidence.
Wells was ill with cancer, and when apprehended said that he was sick and needed help. Officers testified that he was in shock, dazed, language on which appellant relies as justifying submitting the defense of insanity to the jury. But these same officers testified that he told them, at the same time, that he had “done an awful thing”. It is clear from the testimony that his references to sickness were not to mental illness. There are two remarks, one by^ his sister that “he wanted to cut my old man” and one that he knew he couldn’t kill his wife but that he could beat her to death. There is no positive testimony, lay or expert, showing insanity, and the right-or-wrong test is clearly met. This case is not like Griffin v. State, 96 So.2d 424 (Fla.App.1957) in which affirmative evidence was adduced. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in removing the insanity defense from the jury. See Fla.R.Cr.Proc. 1.210(b), 33 F.S.A.; Brown v. State, 192 So.2d 794 (Fla.App.1966); Johnson v. State, 187 So.2d 281 (Ala.App.1966).
Affirmed.
PIERCE, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. State, 231 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Tully v. State, 69 Fla. 662, 68 So. 934; Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So. 2d 377; Wells v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So. 2d 227.…
-
Hart v. State, 257 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Wells v. State, 216 So. 2d 227 (Fla.App.2nd, 1968). SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)
- Griffin v. State, 96 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Brown v. State, 192 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)