CHARLES E. TURNER, 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.
Turner was convicted by jury of second degree murder for shooting Robinson once in the chest and firing additional shots at his fleeing back. Turner appeals arguing the verdict was a compromise, lacked evidence of depravity of mind, and was insufficient given his self-defense testimony. The appellate court affirms, finding the jury properly evaluated the evidence and depravity was adequately shown.
The jury verdict of second degree murder is supported by substantial competent evidence. The jury properly evaluated Turner's self-defense testimony and rejected it. Depravity of mind for second degree murder was adequately proven through the circumstances of the shooting.
[1] A jury is tasked with evaluating a defendant's testimony regarding self-defense and determining whether to accept it.
[2] A conviction for second-degree murder requires proof of malice, which encompasses ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent.
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“It was the function of the jury to evaluate the appellant's testimony and to decide whether or not to accept his evidence of self defense.”
Establishes that the jury had proper authority to reject Turner's self-defense claim based on the eyewitness testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTurner shot victim Michael Robinson during a confrontation outside an apartment building. Turner testified he acted in self-defense, claiming Robinson…
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 Second Degree Murder Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of a jury conviction of second degree murder. The defendant testified at trial that he shot the victim, Michael Robinson, in self defense. The two were involved in a quarrel, and Robinson, according to the defendant, was reaching into his pocket to grab something, apparently a weapon. The defendant stated that at that point he pulled out a pistol and shot Robinson once.
The defendant said he had had prior difficulties with the victim, over a girl. Robinson previously had threatened him and slapped him, and so the defendant began to carry a gun.
The state offered one eyewitness, other than the defendant, to the fatal shooting. Roosevelt Roberts sta'ted that he was a coworker of the victim’s and was accompanying him on a lunch break. Roberts was seated in a car waiting for Robinson. He testified that Robinson had gone to an apartment in quest of some tape recordings for an automobile stereo system, and the car was parked in front of the building.
After approximately twenty minutes, Roberts observed the victim and defendant emerge from the apartment building, arguing. Roberts stated that he saw the defendant pull a pistol and hold it behind his back for perhaps five seconds before shooting the victim in the chest. Roberts testified that the victim then turned and ran, and the defendant fired perhaps two more shots at the victim’s back. Then the defendant fled the scene, and Roberts called the police.
The state charged the appellant with first degree murder, and the jury returned a verdict of second degree murder. Appellant now argues that the verdict was a compromise verdict, that the evidence did not demonstrate that the killing evinced a depraved mind, a necessary element of the crime of second degree murder, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict in light of the appellant’s testimony that the killing was in self-defense. We disagree.
It was the function of the jury to evaluate the appellant’s testimony and to decide whether or not to accept his evidence of self defense. Darty v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 864, 872. Depravity of mind necessary to convict an individual of second degree murder requires a showing of malice as it is commonly understood, that is a showing of ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent. Raneri v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So. 2d 291; Weaver v. State, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 53, 60. We have concluded that the verdict in this case is supported by substantial competent evidence.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Bristow v. State, 338 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ss and whether to accept the defendant’s defense of self-defense were properly presented by the trial court to the jury for its determination. Evaluation of testimony concerning self-defense is the function of the trier of fact. See Turner v. State, 298 So. 2d 559 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). See also Payton v. State, 200 So. 2d 255 (Fla.3d DCA 1967), where the court held that ordinarily the question of self-defense is one of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.2 The second point that we shall address ourselves…
-
Holland v. State, 359 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…161 So. 2d 864, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964): “It was of course the function of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and sufficiency of the evidence” [with reference to the issue of self-defense there]. In Turner v. State, 298 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), it was said: “It was the function of the jury to evaluate the appellant’s testimony and to decide whether or not to accept his evidence of self defense”. In J. Y. v. State, 332 So. 2d 643, 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), the court s…
-
Manuel v. State, 344 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…cond degree murder has been equated with malice in the commonly understood sense of ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent. Ramsey v. State, 114 Fla. 766, 154 So. 855, 856 (1934); see Huntley v. State, 66 So. 2d 504, 507 (Fla.1953); Turner v. State, 298 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Bega v. State, 100 So. 2d 455, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).1 Within the category of second degree murder there exist varying gradations of cases. The reason for this is that some acts are simply more depraved than others. For ex…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Darty v. State, 161 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Weaver v. State, 220 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Frazier v. Louie L. Wainwright, 255 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Raneri v. State, 255 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)