CHARLES RAY ARNOLD, 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.
Charles Ray Arnold was convicted of second-degree murder after being indicted for first-degree murder. On appeal via habeas corpus, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction, arguing his self-defense testimony was uncontradicted. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.
The conviction is affirmed. Although the defendant testified to facts supporting self-defense, substantial evidence from the defendant's prior conduct and statements and post-killing conduct was sufficient for the jury to reject the self-defense claim and support the conviction.
[1] A conviction may be affirmed if there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict, even if the record contains strong evidence for the defense.
[2] Evidence of a defendant's conduct and statements prior to and after a killing may be considered by a jury to refute a claim of self-defense.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There were no witnesses to the killing other than the defendant and the deceased, and the appellant-defendant contends there were no facts or circumstances disclosed in evidence which could be said to contradict or refute his version of the incident”
Establishes Arnold's argument that his self-defense testimony was uncontradicted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArnold admitted killing the deceased but claimed self-defense. Arnold was the only witness to the killing besides the victim. The defendant testified …
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 Directed Verdict Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree. On trial before a jury he was found guilty of second degree murder. On April 24, 1969, the trial court adjudged him guilty of such crime and sentenced him to confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 20 years. No timely appeal was filed.
On February 25, 1970, the appellant filed in this court an amended petition for habe-as corpus, seeking appellate review on the ground and theory that by state action he was thwarted in taking a timely appeal. *193On authority of Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239, this court, based on the petition for habeas corpus, granted review in the nature of appeal, 233 So.2d 173, directed the filing of the record and briefs, and has heard argument thereon.
The question presented on appeal is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. At trial the appellant-defendant contended the killing was done by him in self-defense. The defendant testified at the trial. He admitted killing the deceased, but related a version of the affray and killing which, standing alone, appeared to be sufficient to support a claim of self-defense. There were no witnesses to the killing other than the defendant and the deceased, and the appellant-defendant contends there were no facts or circumstances disclosed in evidence which could be said to contradict or refute his version of the incident, and therefore that his motion for directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted. In support thereof the appellant cites Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244, where, with regard to the effect of a defendant’s testimony indicating self-defense, the Supreme Court, in reversing a conviction and granting a new trial, said: “ * * * We cannot say that there exists in this case any fact or circumstance which can be said to refute the statement of the defendant as to the details of the affair.”
The Holton decision is not controlling here because, contrary to the contention of the appellant, an examination of the record of this case discloses there was evidence, from conduct and statements of the defendant prior to the killing and his conduct thereafter, which the jury could, and no doubt did consider sufficient refutation of the defendant’s version of the incident. There being substantial evidence to support the verdict, the judgment should not be disturbed notwithstanding strong evidence for the defense may appear in the record.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Randolph v. State, 290 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…e the defendant’s version of the incident. In addition, the knife with which the victim allegedly attacked the defendant was never found nor positively seen lying next to the victim’s body by any of the witnesses. Cf. Arnold v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So. 2d 192. There being substantial competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury which properly considered the issue of self-defense,1 the judgment will not be disturbed. Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. . Pay…
-
Jones v. State, 286 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…taken as true. Contrary to appellant’s position, we find after a review of the record on appeal that there was sufficient evidence controverting defendant’s version of'the incident to support the jury’s verdict. See Arnold v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So. 2d 192. Acting within its province, the jury having resolved the conflicts against the defendant, this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts as to the credibility of the witnesses and weight of the evidence. Stewart v. S…
-
Sanders v. State, 359 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). The jury having rejected such defense upon proper instructions and sufficient evidence, I see no basis for upsetting the ensuing conviction herein. Randolph v. State, 290 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Arnold v. State, 241 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). See also Hedges v. State, 165 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1924)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Charles Ray Arnold v. State, 233 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)