HERBERT BARBER
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.
Herbert Barber was convicted of murder in the second degree after being indicted for murder in the first degree. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed his conviction on writ of error and affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence sufficient and the verdict proper.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding the verdict entirely certain and sufficient when considered in connection with the remainder of the record, and determining that the evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
“The verdict when considered in connection with the remainder of the record is entirely certain and sufficient.”
Establishes that the court found the verdict sufficiently clear and adequate despite the downgrade from first to second 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 intelligenceBarber was indicted for murder in the first degree and tried before Judge Miles W. Lewis in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Duval …
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 Second Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree.
Plaintiff in error states two questions for our disposal, as follows:
“1. Did the court err in finding the evidence sufficient to sustain a verdict pf ^murder in the second degree ?
“2. Did the court err in accepting the verdict of the jury in the form and manner rendered?”
The bill of exceptions recites as follows:
*621“In the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida.
“State of Florida, Plaintiff, v. Herbert Barber, alias Red Barber, Defendant.
“Be it remembered that on the 17th day of February, A. D. 1936, a cause therein pending wherein the State of Florida was plaintiff and Herbert Barber alias Red Barber was defendant, came on to be tried before his honor Miles W. Lewis, Judge of said Circuit Court upon an indictment charging the defendant with Murder in the First Degree.
“State of Florida being represented by John W. Harrell Esquire, and the defendant being represented by Samuel B. Wilson Esquire.
“And thereupon the jury having been duly empanellel ' and. sworn to try the issue, the following further proceedings were had:” * * *
The verdict was as follows:
“We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty of Murder in the Second Degree. So say we all. C. W. Duckworth, Foreman. Jacksonville, Fla., Feb. 18, 1936.”
The verdict when considered in connection with the remainder of the record is entirely certain and sufficient.
We have considered the evidence and find it amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. The entire record discloses no reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, . J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Plant Bd. v. Walter A. Smith and wife, 110 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1959)…rural lands, State ex rel. Davis v. City of Stuart, supra, 120 So. 335; to require a city to compensate the owner of oyster beds for damage to such beds caused by the City’s dumping sewage into the river, Gibson v. City of Tampa, 1938, 135 Fla. 637, 185 So. 319; to hold invalid zoning ordinances in their application to a particular property, Dowling v. State, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 519; Ex parte Wise, 141 Fla. 222, 192 So. 872, and to hold invalid an ordinance forbidding bathing in a privately owned lake from…
-
Zabel v. Pinellas Cnty. Water & Navigation Control Auth., 171 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1965)….” . 154 So. 2d 181, 183-184 (Fla.App.2nd 1963). . See Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Ma. 544, 82 So. 221 (1919), (Riparian rights are property rights that may be regulated but not taken without just compensation.); Gibson v. City of Tampa, 135 Ma. 637, 185 So. 319 (1938) (Right to propagate oysters under leases on oyster beds in Tampa Bay constitutes “property”) ; Hamilton v. Williams, 145 Ma. 697, 200 So. 80 (1941) (Right of a property owner to hunt such wild game as is found upon his land is a vested proper…
-
Grant v. United States, 192 F.2d 482 (4th Cir. 1951)…s. Hampton v. North Carolina Pulp Co., supra. The rule sustained by reason, and we think by the great weight of authority, is thus stated by Chief Justice Terrell, speaking for the Supreme Court of Florida, in Gibson v. City of Tampa, 135 Fla. 637, 185 So. 319, 321, which dealt with the destruction of oyster beds by a municipality’s discharge of untreated sewage: “In our view, the enactment of Chapter 6532, Acts of 1913, and other acts to provide for the propagation and culture of oysters materially alter…