KATHERINE 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.
Katherine Williams was convicted of second-degree murder after being charged with first-degree murder. On appeal, she challenged the admissibility of her police statement, denial of grand jury minutes, and denial of her motion for directed verdict. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error.
The court held no reversible error occurred. The police statement was voluntarily made and admissible; denial of grand jury minutes was not an abuse of discretion; and denial of the directed verdict motion was proper because sufficient evidence supported submission to the jury and the conviction.
[1] A statement voluntarily made by a defendant to the police after being informed of their rights is admissible in court.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to the minutes of grand jury proceedings, especially when the request is not clearly supported by the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 defendant's statement to the police was voluntarily made after having been informed of her rights. Moreover, it was exculpatory in character, with the result that following her statement she was released by the police, and her subsequent indictment was the result of evidence relating to the incident obtained on later investigation.”
Establishes why the police statement was properly admitted and supports the court's rejection of the first argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was indicted for first-degree murder. At trial before a jury, she was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty years impriso…
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 Exculpatory Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged by indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree. On trial before a jury she was convicted of second degree murder, and sentenced to imprisonment for the term of twenty years. On her appeal therefrom it is contended the court erred (1) by holding to be admissible a statement given by the defendant to the police; (2) by refusing to “give to the defense the minutes of the Grand Jury relating to the case;” and (3) by denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Upon consideration thereof in the light of the record, briefs and argument we hold that no reversible error has been shown.
The defendant’s statement to the police was voluntarily made after having been informed of her rights. Moreover, it was exculpatory in character, with the result that following her statement she was released by the police, and her subsequent indictment was the result of evidence relating to the incident obtained on later investigation. Denial of defendant’s request for the production of minutes of the grand jury proceedings was not an abuse of discretion, in the circumstances of this case. See Minton v. State, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 361, 365; State v. Drayton, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 469. A request for production of the grand jury minutes, claimed by the defendant to have been made prior to trial, was not entitled to be granted. Minton v. State, supra. The further contention that such request was made at trial is not supported by the record, which fails to show any clear request therefor, but rather to reveal a request for production of statements of various witness*811es made to the police, the refusal of the court to grant the latter request not being challenged in the appellant’s brief. Denial of defendant’s motion for directed verdict was not error. The evidence was clearly sufficient upon which to submit the case to the jury, and to support the conviction.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Minton v. State, 113 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. Drayton, 226 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)