HERBERT LEE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Herbert Lee Williams was convicted of second-degree murder for his role as an accomplice in a robbery-homicide. He appealed on three grounds: that a detective's testimony about oral statements should have been excluded because a written confession was inadmissible, that the evidence was insufficient to prove aiding and abetting, and that the State used perjured testimony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction on all counts.
The court held that: (1) oral statements made at a different time and place are admissible even if a separate written confession is inadmissible, particularly where no duress or inducement was shown; (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove aiding and abetting because the appellant and Dennis had planned the robbery with an agreed division of roles, and Williams' full intent and knowledge were established; and (3) the use of Dennis' unreliable and conflicting testimony does not constitute knowing use of perjured testimony under the applicable standard.
[1] Oral statements made by a defendant are admissible even if a written confession containing similar information was excluded, provided the oral statements are not otherwis…
[2] Evidence of a defendant's discussion of a planned robbery and agreement on roles, followed by the commission of a killing during the robbery, is sufficient to establish t…
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“The proper rule as we understand it is set forth in State v. Smith, 227 S.C. 400, 88 S.E. 2d 345, 348 (1955), and Taylor v. State, 31 Ala.App. 590, 20 So. 2d 239 (1944).”
Establishes the rule that oral statements made at a different time and place are admissible even if a related written statement is inadmissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams and another man, Willie James Dennis, discussed committing a robbery. They agreed that Dennis would hold the gun while Williams would search …
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 Involuntary Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
An information was preferred against the appellant accusing him of the crime of second degree murder. He entered a plea of not guilty and was tried before a jury. He was found guilty, adjudged, and sentenced to life in prison. He presents three points for reversal. The first two points challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction and will therefore be considered together. The first point urges that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a detective who transported the appellant back to Florida from Kentucky where he was apprehended. This detective testified as to statements made by the appellant which severely damaged the appellant’s position at trial. Appellant does not urge that his conversations with the officer were inadmissible because they were involuntary, or because they were given without proper warning or opportunity to be represented by counsel. In other words, the objection is not predicated on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), but is rather based upon an argument that inasmuch as the court found a *856written confession inadmissible, the facts contained in the written confession could not be proved by oral statement. Appellant cites no authority in support of this proposition. He suggests that Bates v. State, 78 Fla. 672, 84 So. 373 (1919), may be helpful. We have examined the cited case and find that no portion of it is applicable to the argument presented. The written statement was not admitted because of the State’s inability to produce the stenographer who took the statement. No duress or inducement was suggested. The oral statements testified to by the officer were made at another time and place. The proper rule as we understand it is set forth in State v. Smith, 227 S.C. 400, 88 S.E.2d 345, 348 (1955), and Taylor v. State, 31 Ala.App. 590, 20 So.2d 239 (1944).
The other point urges that the State did not present evidence that the appellant was present, aiding and abetting the killing by the actual perpetrator, and participating in the felonious design. See Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897 (1933). The record does not support appellant’s point. There is evidence that appellant and another discussed a robbery, and that it was agreed the other person would hold the gun and that appellant would go through the victim’s pockets. When the actual crime was committed, the holder of the gun shot the victim, the victim later dying. Under these circumstances, the full intent and knowledge of the appellant was established.
Appellant’s third point urges that the appellant’s conviction should be reversed because the State knowingly used perjured testimony. The robber who actually pulled the trigger and killed the victim was Willie James Dennis. He testified against the appellant at the trial. The record reveals that Dennis was a very unreliable witness. He told conflicting stories on the stand. There is an indication in the record that the State was surprised by the conflicting stories that Dennis told.1 Under these circumstances, we hold that the use of Dennis’ testimony does not constitute the use of perjured testimony as described in Cash v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 18.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barron v. State, 990 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…the instant case because the defendant was convicted of attempted second degree murder. We must respectfully disagree. The following are examples where these same principles were applied to convictions of second degree murder. In Williams v. State, 261 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), this court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for second degree murder where the co-perpetrator shot and killed the victim during the commission of a robbery that both the defendant and co-perpetrator had planned to commit. Like…1 / 2
-
Pitts v. State, 307 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…s were not as a result of negotiations, but were made voluntarily for the sole purpose of presenting an impassioned plea of mercy. The statements were properly admitted. (Not controlling, but somewhat similar is Williams v. State, Fla.App. 3rd 1972, 261 So. 2d 855. See also Pinkney v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 306 So. 2d 155. We have examined the other points raised by appellants and find them to be without merit. We have also carefully searched the lengthy record of this case seeking to ferret out any point…
-
Luc Quy Tran v. State, 667 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…in the murder based on the primary and active role he played in the planning and execution of the events leading up to the crime. See Staten v. State, 519 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1988); Segars v. State, 537 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Williams v. State, 261 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); § 777.011, Fla.Stat. (1991). A significant factor leading us to this conclusion is the appellant’s statement regarding the need for him and his co-felons to possess loaded firearms. From this statement, the jury could reasonably…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Bates v. State, 78 Fla. 672 (Fla. 1919)
- Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1933)
- Cash v. State, 207 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)