JOHNNIE DAVID RANDOLPH, 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.
Johnnie David Randolph was convicted of aggravated assault after being indicted for first-degree murder and sentenced to five years. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence to support the verdict, claiming his self-defense testimony was uncontradicted. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence contradicted his account and supported the jury's verdict.
The judgment was affirmed. Substantial competent evidence supported the jury verdict despite the defendant's self-defense claim. The evidence included statements made by the defendant that contradicted his trial testimony, and the absence of the alleged weapon further undermined his account.
[1] A jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal if there is substantial competent evidence to support it.
[2] Evidence of statements made by a defendant immediately after an incident can be used to refute their trial testimony regarding self-defense.
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“There being substantial competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury which properly considered the issue of self-defense, the judgment will not be disturbed.”
The court's holding that sufficient evidence supported the conviction despite the self-defense claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was indicted for first-degree murder and tried by jury. He testified the killing was done in self-defense. There were no witnesses other tha…
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 Directed Verdict Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree, tried by jury, found guilty of aggravated assault, and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary.
On appeal, defendant-appellant raises the question as to whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
At the trial, the defendant testified that the killing was done by him in self defense. There were no witnesses to this event other than the defendant and the victim, and appellant contends there were no facts or circumstances disclosed in the evidence which could be said to contradict or refute his version of the incident. Citing Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65, 99 So. 244 (1924) and Alexander v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 284 So. 2d 478 as authority therefor, defendant-appellant contends his motion for directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted.
The above cases are not controlling here because an examination of the record discloses there was evidence from statements of the defendant made to one of the witnesses immediately after the killing and his statements at the trial which the jury obviously considered sufficient to refute the defendant’s version of the incident. In addition, the knife with which the victim allegedly attacked the defendant was never found nor positively seen lying next to the victim’s body by any of the witnesses. Cf. Arnold v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So. 2d 192. There being substantial competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury which properly considered the issue of self-defense,1 the judgment will not be disturbed.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Payton v. State, Fla.App., 1967, 260 So. 2d 256.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. State, 360 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…to manslaughter upon the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence in the case. Popps v. State, 120 Fla. 387, 162 So. 701 (1935); Perkins on Criminal Law 60, 1013-16 (2d ed. 1969). See also Randolph v. State, 290 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hedges v. State, 165 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). We have carefully considered the defendant’s second contention on appeal and find it to be unpersuasive as a basis for upsetting this conviction. We cannot say that the tr…
-
Pierce v. State, 376 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…to manslaughter upon the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence in the case. Popps v. State, 120 Fla. 387, 162 So. 701 (1935); Perkins on Criminal Law 60, 1013-16 (2d ed. 1969). See also Randolph v. State, 290 So. 2d 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Hedges v. State, 165 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). Accord: Manuel v. State, 344 So. 2d 1317 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), cert. dism., 355 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1978); Raneri v. State, 255 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1st DCA 1971); see also Stinson v. S…
-
Jones v. State, 524 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…’s death. We find there was competent, substantial evidence in the record from which the jury could properly reject appellant’s defense of self-defense and find him guilty for the offense of aggravated assault with a firearm. See Randolph v. State, 290 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA) (appellant’s statements after the killing and at trial, together with apparent concealment of murder weapon, supported conviction for aggravated assault), cert. denied, 295 So. 2d 630 (Fla.1974). Furthermore, the jury’s verdict of not…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holton v. State, 87 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1924)
- Bradley v. Clyde M. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Arnold v. State, 241 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Adams v. Berkowitz, 284 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)