CARLOS WILLIAMS, ALIAS CARL WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 court held that the evidence sustained a conviction for murder in the first degree, despite the defendant's claim of self-defense.
Carlos Williams killed Otis Copeland and was convicted of first-degree murder. Williams claimed self-defense, stating Copeland approached him with a d…
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
Carlos Williams was tried and convicted for murder in the first degree with recommendation to mercy. He was sentenced to life imprisonment but contends that he should be relieved of that judgment because the evidence does not sustain murder in the first degree.
It is admitted that Carlos Williams killed Otis Copeland at the time and place and in the manner alleged in the indictment but he (Williams) contends that he was acting in self defense in that when he fired the fatal shot, the deceased was approaching him with a drawn gun in a threatening manner.
There is no evidence supporting self defense except that of the defendant and it is flatly contradicted by the physical facts and the evidence of the only witness to the tragedy, Eva McMahison. Other witnesses were near enough to hear the gun fire but none were present. When the deceased was picked up where he fell soon after the killing, there was no weapon on or about his person.
There is considerable evidence to the effect that the killing was the sequel to a drinking levee and that all the parties were intoxicated. This doubtless accounts for the recommendation to mercy as there is ample support for a verdict of murder in the first degree.
Affirmed.
*89Whitfield, acting C. J., and Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concurring.
Brown, C. J., absent, not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Lowe v. State, 154 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1944)
-
Baker v. State, 336 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1976)…have changed the verdict.” Rule 3.600(a)(3), RCrP. Accordingly, the “trial judge has a wide discretion in the matter of granting or denying [motions for new trial] which we will not overthrow unless some abuse is shown.” State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So. 2d 721, 722 (1941). State v. Strickland, 172 So. 2d 260 (Fla.App.2d 1965). Only very rarely should the trial court’s determination be disturbed, see Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815 (1937); Solis v. State, 262 So. 2d 9 (Fla.App.2d 1972) cert. den.…
-
Sylvia v. State, 210 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…70, 41 So. 395; Pitts v. State, Fla.1966, 185 So. 2d 164, and it is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate an abuse of this discretion before this court would be warranted in reversing the convictions on this point. State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So. 2d 721; Gilchrist v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 777; Hanson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 54. It is apparent that the trial court exercised due diligence in determining what the additional evidence would disclose, and determined that it was somet…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence