L. D. GOODSON
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder, finding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to disbelieve the defendant's self-defense testimony, even though he was the sole eyewitness.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment of murder in the second degree.
“While there was no eye witness contradicting defendant's version of the occurrence, there was ample circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have reasonably arrived at the conclusion that the .defendant's testimony was not true.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for upholding the jury's verdict despite the lack of direct contradiction to the defendant's testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after being indicted for first-degree murder. The defendant testified that he shot the deceased af…
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error is to judgment of conviction of murder in second degree under indictment charging murder in the first degree.
Defendant in court below was the only eye-witness produced en the trial. He presents one question for our consideration, which is as follows:
“Where the evidence is undisputed that the accused shot the deceased as the latter continued to come into accused’s yard after being ordered to stop, and where accused testified that the deceased said ‘God damn you, I’m gonna kill you,’ and continued to advance on accused, who was on the front porch of his own house, after which accused shot deceased and killed him, is such evidence sufficient to warrant a verdict and judgment of murder in the second degree ?”'
While there was no eye witness contradicting defendant’s version of the occurrence, there was ample circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have reasonably arrived at the conclusion that the .defendant’s testimony was not true.
On the whole the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.
No reversible error being disclosed by the record, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
*477Whitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.