JAMES SMITH A/K/A JOHNNY SMITH, 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.
James Smith was convicted of murder in the third degree for killing Milicent Gray Baker during an armed robbery at a 7-Eleven store in Florida. On appeal, Smith challenged the victim's identification, witness credibility regarding a prosecutorial deal, and jury instructions on felony murder, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction and 20-year sentence.
The court held that no reversible error occurred. The victim's identification by her brother was not reversible error given that other evidence established the victim's family relationships and presence at the store. The claim that the prosecutor allowed false testimony regarding the witness's deal with the state was unsupported by the record. The felony murder instructions were not erroneous.
[1] Identification of a deceased victim by a relative does not constitute reversible error when other evidence in the case reveals the victim's family and the circumstances s…
[2] A conviction will not be overturned based on a claim that a prosecutor allowed a witness to testify falsely concerning a deal with the state when the record provides no s…
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 appellant, with a gun, demanded money of the man in charge and shot him when he refused prompt obedience and reached for a gun; that the appellant then shot the woman customer for whose death he was charged in this case.”
Establishes the factual basis for the murder charge through witness testimony describing Smith's conduct during the armed robbery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was indicted for first-degree murder in the death of Milicent Gray Baker in Palm Beach County. A co-participant in the robbery testified that Sm…
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 Premeditated Design cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By indictment of a grand jury of Palm Beach County, the appellant was charged with murder in the first degree, alleging he caused the death of one Milicent Gray Baker, in that county, by premeditated design by gunshot. A change of venue was granted, and jury trial was held in Dade County. The verdict rendered was “guilty of murder in the third degree.” Following denial of a motion for new trial the defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense named in the verdict and sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of twenty years. These consolidated appeals by the, defendant are from the judgment and sentence.
One of the participants, who had previously been conviqjed for a killing which occurred on the occasion in question, testified that the appellant and two other men or boys (of whom said witness was one) entered a 7-Eleven store; the appellant, with a gun, demanded money of the man in charge and shot him when he refused prompt obedience and reached for a gun; that the appellant then shot the woman customer for whose death he was charged in this case.
The appellant contends the court erred (1) by permitting the deceased victim to be identified by a relative; (2) by denying his motion for a new trial “where it appeared the prosecutor allowed a critical witness to testify falsely concerning his deal with the state” ; and (3) by submitting confusing instructions on the felony murder doctrine. On consideration thereof in the light of the record, briefs and argument we hold reversible error has not been shown.
In the circumstances of the case, as fully outlined with record references in the brief of the state, we are impelled to conclude that permitting identification of the victim by her brother did not constitute reversible error. The existence of a family of the victim was otherwise revealed. The evidence showed the victim’s seven year old child was with her at the time. The alibi defense relied on by the defendant prompted evidence as to the exact time of the occurrence, including testimony by the victim’s husband as to the time of her proceeding to the store with the boy. The error, if any, in that connection was not harmful.
The appellant’s contention that the prosecutor allowed the participant who had been convicted to “testify falsely concerning his deal with the state” is found to be without support in the record.
We have considered the appellant’s third contention and hold it is without merit.
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.