WILLIAM D. MCDANIEL, SR., PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
William McDaniel challenges his first-degree murder conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence of premeditation and claims of intoxication and insanity. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of premeditation and competent evidence supporting the jury's rejection of the intoxication and insanity defenses.
The court held that although the evidence of premeditation was circumstantial, it was sufficient for the jury to lawfully infer beyond a reasonable doubt that McDaniel shot the deceased with premeditated design. The court also held that competent evidence supported the jury's findings that McDaniel was sane at the time of the crime and was not so intoxicated that he did not know the nature and consequences of his act.
“Although the evidence adduced for the purpose of proving the fact of premeditation is circumstantial, there is sufficient competent evidence in the record from which the jury might lawfully have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner shot the deceased with the premeditated design to effect her death.”
Establishes the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove premeditation element of first-degree murder
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcDaniel was convicted by jury verdict of first-degree murder with a recommendation of mercy. The evidence showed McDaniel shot the deceased. McDaniel…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks review of a judgment of conviction based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree murder with a recommendation of mercy.
Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the essential element of premeditation. Although the evidence adduced for the purpose of proving the fact of premeditation is circumstantial, there is sufficient competent evidence in the record from which the jury might lawfully have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner shot the deceased with the premeditated design to effect her death.1
Secondly, petitioner contends that the manifest weight of the evidence establishes that either he was so intoxicated at the time of the homicide that he could not have entertained any intent to commit the offense for which he has been convicted, or that he was legally insane at the time of the murder and therefore not responsible for his act. Both the lay and expert testimony on these points of contention are in irreconcilable conflict. The record reveals competent evidence, which, if believed, would be sufficient to support the' jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner was sane at the time he committed the crime with which he was charged, and was not so intoxicated that he did not know the nature and consequences pf.the act he was about to commit.
The last point urged by petitioner has been carefully considered, but found to be without substantial merit.
In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches this court clothed with a presumption of correctness. It is not our province to substitute our judgment for that of the trier of *857the facts. These findings will not he disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.2 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dilyerd, 467 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1985)…e suppression hearing and heard the testimony of the witnesses and observed their demeanor thought so. Absent a clear showing of an error of law or fact, the trial court’s finding is clothed with a presumption of correctness. McDaniel v. Wainwright, 226 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). As against this, we have the arguments of respondent that the actions of the police in failing to pat-down the suspects after removing them from the car, failing to check for outstanding warrants or a stolen car report before se…
-
Turner v. State, 297 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…his contention. While the evidence here was largely circumstantial, it is sufficient and competent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased with a premeditated [*642] design to effect her death. McDaniel v. Wainwright, 226 So. 2d 856 (Fla.App.1st 1969). The defendant also complains of the state attorney’s constant reference throughout the trial to the testimony of the “court appointed” or “state appointed” psychiatrists. “Apparently,” so the defendant says, “this was to show th…
Authorities Cited
- Larry v. State, 104 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1958)
- Prentiss T. Parrish v. State, 97 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)