ALTON DANLEY
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.
Alton Danley was convicted of manslaughter for shooting J. D. Turner and appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jury had sufficient evidence to infer the elements of manslaughter even though the defendant's self-defense testimony might raise reasonable doubt in the appellate court's minds.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that although the defense evidence might raise reasonable doubt in the appellate court's minds, there was substantial evidence from which the jury could lawfully infer the elements of manslaughter, and the jury as the judge of credibility was entitled to believe the state's witnesses over the defense witnesses.
“Where there is irreconcilable conflict in the testimony, it is for the jury to say what testimony they will believe and what they will disbelieve. They are the judge of the credibility of the testimony.”
Establishes the foundational principle that juries, not appellate courts, determine witness credibility when testimony conflicts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDanley shot and killed J. D. Turner. Danley admitted firing the shot but claimed self-defense, supported by his own testimony, his brother C. R. Danle…
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 Jury'S Role In Determining Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Alton Danley was convicted of manslaughter upon an indictment charging him with the murder of J. D. Turner and comes here upon writ of error complaining that the evidence is not .sufficient to support the verdict.
The defendant admitted that he shot the deceased, but contended that he acted in self-defense. This contention was supported by the testimony of the defendant, Mrs. Effie Burns, and the defendant’s brother, C. R. Danley. Several witnesses for the State testified that immediately after the shooting Mrs. Effie Burns said she was “stooping ■ down picking up bottles” when the shooting occurred and she did not know who killed Turner.
Although the evidence produced by Alton Danley, C. R. Danley, and Mrs. Effie Burns might be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the members of this Court, it cannot be said on this record that there was no substantial evidence from which the jury might lawfully have inferred the particular elements of manslaughter.
In Davidson v. State, 99 Fla. 732, 127 So. 342, it is said:
“Where there is irreconcilable conflict in the testimony, it is for the jury to say what testimony they will believe and what they will disbelieve. They are the .judge of the credibility of the testimony. They have the witnesses before them and the opportunity, not only to hear their testimony and the tone and inflections of their voices, but to observe their demeanor on the stand, and their manner when testifying. The appellate court has before it only the cold record of the language used. It is therefore seldom the case that an appellate court is justified in setting aside the verdict of a jury, where, although there is conflict in the testimony on material issues, the jury had .before them sufficient testi*30mony, which reasonable men could give credit to, and which, if believed, was sufficient to sustain their verdict.”
See also Robinson v. State, 69 Fla. 521, 68 So. 649; Bellinger v. State, 70 Fla. 464, 70 So. 438; McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215, 63 So. 419; Spanish, et al., v. State, 72 Fla. 420, 73 So. 230; Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377, 61 So. 975; Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135, 63 So. 138; Teal v. State, 119 Fla. 394, 161 So. 422.
After a study of the evidence we cannot say that a jury of reasonable men could not have reached the verdict which was found, or that they were influenced by considerations outside the evidence.. Furthermore, the trial judge, who also had the opportunity of hearing the testimony, declined to set the verdict aside. We cannot say that he was in error iti so doing. The denial of the motion for new trial on the ground of the alleged insufficiency of the evidence, being the only assignment of error insisted upon in argument, the judgment must stand, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1941)…ct, it will not be disturbed on appeal, there being nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. See Davidson v. State, 99 Fla. 732, 127 So. 342; Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 90, 184 So. 777; Danley v. State, 135 Fla. 28, 184 So. 525; Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798, 190 So. 259; Taylor v. State, 139 Fla. 679, 190 So. 691, 124 A. L. R. 835; and cases cited therein. It is also contended by the defendant that the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistr…
-
Labarbara v. State, 150 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1942)…ct, it will not be disturbed on appeal, there being nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. See Davidson v. State, 99 Fla. 732, 127 So. 342; Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 90, 184 So. 777; Danley v. State, 135 Fla. 28, 184 So. 525; Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798, 190 So. 259; [*678] Taylor v. State, 139 Fla. 542, 190 So. 691, 124 A.L.R. 835; and cases cited therein.” It is next contended that the State witnesses are spotters, stool pigeons and accomplices and for…
-
Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1940)…en examined and carefully considered. It is conflicting and the jury resolved the conflicts against the accused. No reversible error is shown. See Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 Sou. 685; Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167, 47 Sou. 4; Danley v. State, 135 Fla. 28, 184 Sou. 525. The judgment is affirmed. So ordered. Affirmed. Terrell, Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion -and judgment. Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General L…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 69 Fla. 521 (Fla. 1915)
- Spanish v. State, 72 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1916)
- McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1913)
- Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1913)
- Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1913)
- Davidson v. State, 99 Fla. 732 (Fla. 1930)
- Teal v. State, 119 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1935)
- Dick Bellinber v. State, 70 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1915)