ELMER CLAYTON EDWARDS, 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.
Elmer Clayton Edwards was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the third degree after shooting his former employer's victim in the head during an altercation. Edwards appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because it did not establish the depraved mind or scienter necessary for this lesser-included offense. The court affirmed, holding that the act of pointing a gun at the victim's head and firing it was imminently dangerous and evinced a depraved mind.
The conviction for assault with intent to commit murder in the third degree is affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. If the evidence is sufficient for a jury to find guilt of first or second degree murder had the victim died, then conviction for the lesser-included assault charge must be affirmed.
[1] A conviction for assault with intent to commit murder in the third degree is sustainable if the evidence would have supported a conviction for first or second degree murd…
[2] State of mind in a criminal case may be inferred from a defendant's actions.
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“It is well established that state of mind may be inferred from one's actions, and that murderous intent may be established by the facts and circumstances of the case, such as a weapon being directed at some vital spot on the assaultee's body.”
Establishes the legal standard that murderous intent and depraved mind can be inferred from the defendant's actions, particularly the direction of a weapon at a vital area.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards and his brother went to Edwards' former employer to collect vacation pay. An altercation ensued during which Edwards struck the employer and c…
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 Depraved Mind Regardless Of Human Life cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The information charged, the defendant with assault to commit murder in the first degree. The Defendant pleaded not guilty, and after trial by jury, he was found to be guilty of assault with intent to commit murder in the third degree, convicted and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. He now appeals the conviction and sentence.
The thrust of the appeal is that it was error for the court to enter judgment of conviction because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, in that the evidence would not have sustained a conviction of murder in either the first or the second degree had the victim died. The defendant contends that the evidence neither shows a depraved mind, nor proves the scienter which is necessary for conviction in the lesser included charge of assault with intent to commit murder in the third degree. Defendant analogizes the facts in the case sub judice to those situations wherein criminal acts arise out of sudden anger. Assuming the jury resolved all conflicts in the evidence and issues of fact, it appears that the defendant and his brother went to the defendant’s former employer in order to collect vacation pay to which defendant claims he is entitled. An altercation ensued in which the defendant struck the former employer and committed other acts of violence, whereupon four men, including the victim, restrained the defendant. The defendant’s brother entered the room; the defendant broke loose, pulled out a gun and pointed it at the victim’s head. The victim took three steps backwards, at which time the defendant shot the victim in the head, wounding, but not killing him.
Giving due regard to the question of proof, we have examined the record for substantial competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment. See Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24, and Wetherington v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 294. If the evidence is sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of first or second degree murder if the victim had died, then the conviction for assault with intent to commit murder in the third degree must be affirmed. Compare Phillips v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 134, 162 So. 346; and see Riner v. State, 1937, 128 Fla. 848, 176 So. 38, 39.
As defined in § 782.04, Fla.Stat., murder in the first degree requires premeditated design, and murder in the second degree requires an imminently dangerous act evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life. It is well established that state of mind may be inferred from one’s actions,1 and that murderous intent may be established by the facts and circumstances of the case, such as a weapon being directed at some vital spot on the assaultee’s body.2
Assuming arguendo the facts sub judice do not support a finding of the requisite intent for murder in the first degree, we find the act of the defendant in pointing the gun at the victim’s head and then firing it, to be imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life. See Hines v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 334.
From the defendant’s actions, the jury could have inferred premeditated design or depraved mind regardless of human life, and, therefore, had the victim died, conviction for first or second degree murder would be affirmed. A fortiori, conviction for assault with intent to commit third degree murder is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 496, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528.
. Caraker v. State, Fla.1956, 84 So. 2d 50. See also Forehand v. State, 1936, 126 Fla. 464, 171 So. 241, 242.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manuel v. State, 344 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…ool building. That shot struck and killed a student standing on the stairs. Second degree murder convictions were also upheld in cases involving the pointing of a weapon at a vital area of the body before the weapon discharged. In Edwards v. State, 302 So. 2d 479 (Fla.3d DCA 1974) the court found that the act of the defendant in pointing his gun at the victim’s head, waiting until the victim had taken three steps backward, and then firing the gun, to be both depraved and imminently dangerous. See State v. Br…
-
Gibbs v. State, 904 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…second degree murder conviction); Dellinger v. State, 495 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (finding act of pointing rifle at wife without knowing whether it was loaded and pulling trigger was sufficient to demonstrate depraved mind); Edwards v. State, 302 So. 2d 479, 480-81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (finding act of pointing loaded gun at victim and then firing is imminently dangerous to human life and evinces a depraved mind); Hines v. State, 227 So. 2d 334, 335-36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) (finding act of pointing gun at v…
-
Keltner v. State, 650 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…evidence in this case, we find that the act of pointing a loaded firearm in someone’s direction and then firing it is imminently dangerous to another and evinces a depraved mind. Brown v. State, 569 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Edwards v. State, 302 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The appellant also argues that the trial court improperly allowed the state to introduce evidence concerning his shooting into a residence and shooting himself a few days later. The state carefully linked the same weapon to the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896)
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Pleas Forehand v. State, 126 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1936)
- Hines v. State, 227 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Forest Phillips v. State, 120 Fla. 134 (Fla. 1935)
- Riner v. State, 128 Fla. 848 (Fla. 1937)
- In re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 120 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1935)
- Emmett Caraker v. State, 84 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1955)