GEORGE WASHINGTON JAMES
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.
George Washington James was convicted of first-degree murder and appealed on grounds of self-defense and voluntary intoxication. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, finding the evidence supported premeditation despite his intoxication claims.
The court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction, holding that the jury was justified in rejecting the self-defense claim as having no factual basis, and that James's own testimony demonstrated he was capable of forming premeditated intent despite his intoxication and could deliberately determine his conduct.
“As to the claim of self defense the jury was amply justified in reaching the conclusion that it had no basis in fact.”
Establishes that the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's rejection of 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 intelligenceJames shot the deceased at close range in the left breast without provocation or excuse. After the initial shot, James followed the victim to where he…
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
Appeal brings for review judgment of conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree.
It is the contention of appellant that he should have been acquitted on the ground of self defense, or that if the jury did not believe his testimony wherein he claimed that he had acted in self defense then by the verdict he should have been convicted of no higher offense than murder in the second degree because, as he avers, he was so intoxicated from the voluntary drinking of whiskey that his mind was in such condition as to be incapable of forming a premediated design to commit murder as is charged. Both these theories of defense were presented to the jury and the court below.
*535As to the claim of self defense the jury was amply justified in reaching the conclusion that it had no basis in fact.
As to the contention that appellant was so intoxicated at the time of the homicide that he was incapable of having a premeditated design to effect the death of the deceased, his own testimony shows beyond any reasonable doubt that while he had drunk an unusual quantity of whiskey immediately before committing the homicide, he was then in possession of his mental faculties and that he was capable of deliberately determining his course of conduct. Circumstances which are established by his own testimony warrant the conclusion that he went to the place where the homicide occurred expecting and intending to use the pistol (with which the homicide was committed) in a personal difficulty and that he not only shot deceased without, provocation or excuse but that after having shot deceased through the left breast at close range he followed deceased to where he (deceased) had fallen and there deliberately stood over him and shot him through the back of the head.
No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morrison v. State, 247 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of James v. State, 151 Fla. 534, 9 So. 2d 926 (1942), pet. den. 320 U.S. 710, 64 S.Ct. 86, 88 L.Ed. 417, and Coggins v. State, 101 So. 2d 400 (Fla.App.1958). CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.…
-
James v. State, 152 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1943)…rcuit of Florida in and for Polk County on the 27th day of March, 1942. The judgment of conviction was brought to this Court for review and on October 6, 1942, our opinion and judgment was filed and entered affirming the judgment of the trial court, 151 Fla. 534, 9 So. (2nd) 926. The matter is now before us on petition for leave to apply to the court below for writ of error coram nobis. In the petition the petitioner avers in effect that petitioner was convicted upon the perjured testimony of one John Roul…