BETTY BARLOW, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; VERNON BARLOW, 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.
Betty and Vernon Barlow were charged with shooting into an occupied dwelling. Vernon Barlow's conviction was affirmed because sufficient evidence supported the charge, but Betty Barlow's conviction was reversed because the evidence failed to show she knowingly aided, abetted, or counseled the shooting.
Vernon Barlow's conviction was affirmed because sufficient evidence established he fired the shot into the dwelling, and the statute is broad enough to cover his acts despite the weakness of the malice element. Betty Barlow's conviction was reversed because the evidence failed to establish that she knowingly aided, abetted, counseled, or procured the commission of the crime.
[1] An appellate court must review the evidence to determine if it is sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the lower court's judgment.
[2] A jury verdict is justified when there is sufficient evidence to support the charge, even if the element of maliciousness is weak.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We recognize the rule that the appellate courts will not substitute their judgment for that of a jury on disputed questions of fact; however, it is the duty of the court to review the evidence to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and judgment in the lower court.”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVernon and Betty Barlow were jointly charged with wantonly and maliciously shooting at and into a dwelling house occupied by James Tolbert. The eviden…
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 Malice cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants are husband and wife. They were jointly informed against, charged with “wantonly and maliciously” shooting “at and into a dwelling house” which was then and there occupied by one James Tolbert, contrary to chapter 790.19, General Laws of Florida. They were both convicted guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced each to five years in state prison.
*560Appellants have raised several points on appeal, some of which are without merit. The points which appear to merit discussion by us will be enumerated hereinafter.
We recognize the rule that the appellate courts will not substitute their judgment for that of a jury on disputed questions of fact; however, it is the duty of the court to review the evidence to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and judgment in the lower court.
In this case there was sufficient evidence that there was a shot fired by the defendant, Vernon Barlow, which went into the roof of the front porch. It is apparent that there was no effort to do personal harm to the occupants of the dwelling, but we believe, and so hold, that the statute and the information are broad enough to cover the acts of said appellant and the jury was justified in returning the verdict as to the said Vernon Barlow, although the question of maliciousness was very weak.
As to Betty Barlow, we think the evidence fails to support the charge that the said Betty Barlow did knowingly aid, abet and counsel or otherwise procure the commission of the crime, to wit the shooting. The most the evidence shows about Betty Barlow was that she was there and did take part in the ruckus, but there is no evidence that she knew Vernon had a gun or that she, encouraged him to use it. Therefore, as weak as the evidence is against Vernon Barlow as to malice, we cannot agree with the finding of the jury as to Betty Barlow, and the conviction of Betty Barlow, and judgment and sentence are hereby reversed and set aside.
Affirmed as to appellant, Vernon Barlow, and reversed as to Betty Barlow.
SPECTOR, C. J., and MILLS, E. R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. State, 400 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…gravated battery all arising out of the same incident lacks merit. The battery counts involved different persons, and one need not commit an aggravated battery in order to commit the offense of shooting into an occupied vehicle. See Barlow v. State, 255 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Neither is the aggravated battery included in the offense of shooting into the vehicle such as would make it a Brown1 category (4) lesser included offense. Appellant’s contention that he could not be given a split sentence pur…
-
Barlow v. State, 261 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 255 So. 2d 559. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.…