BROOKS
v.
STATE
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.
Brooks was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of J. M. Hicks and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding substantial evidence of guilt and determining that the trial court properly handled the case.
The conviction is affirmed. There was ample substantial evidence for the jury to find that appellant had motive to commit the crime and was the sole participant. The claim regarding improper closing argument cannot be reviewed because the state attorney's argument does not appear in the record.
“Many witnesses were heard and there was ample substantial evidence for the jury to find that appellant had a motive to commit the crime and was the sole participant therein.”
Establishes the sufficiency of evidence for conviction despite Brooks's claim that Henry Brown fired the fatal shot.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe body of J. M. Hicks was found shot with a shotgun and bludgeoned on a path in Apalachicola. Brooks confessed to participating in a plan with Henry…
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 Motive For Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
WARREN, Associate Justice.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree of J. M. Hicks and sentenced to death.
The two questions presented by appellant related to the sufficiency of the evidence, and the propriety of the closing argument of the state attorney.
The body of the deceased was found early in the morning on a path between the railroad and the waterworks in the city of Apalachicola. He had been shot in the hack with a shotgun and bludgeoned about the head. Appellant made a confession in which he admitted he took part in a plan to shoot and rob Hicks, but claimed that another, Henry Brown, fired the gun. The substance of the confession was that he knew Hicks carried a good bit of money on him; that he and Brown planned the crime the day before, that he was to watch for Hicks and Brown was to shoot him, and that thereafter they were to rob him; that after Brown shot Hicks, appellant “grabbed” the money and went home with it. A large sum of money was subsequently located at appellant’s home. In his confession appellant also fixed the time of the shooting by stating “It wasn’t hardly 9:00 o’clock.” This was shortly after the time the wife of deceased approximated he left home and shortly after the time a night watchman testified he saw Hicks alive going down the railroad. Another witness who resided near the scene said she heard a shot which sounded like a shotgun at 9:10 o’clock. See Lewis v. State, 157 Fla. 77, 24 So. 2d 797.
It was established by the state that Henry Brown was at a crab factory during all of these times and, while it was shown that appellant had a shotgun available to him and was in possession of one on the night involved, Brown’s shotgun was in pawn at the time of the murder. Evidence was offered that several weeks before, Hicks, who was a railroad foreman and under whom appellant worked, had discharged appellant from his employment ; that subsequently Hicks, who was in possession of appellant’s pay check, procured the sheriff to go with him to get appellant to indorse the check so that deceased could obtain from appellant fifty dollars which appellant owed deceased.
Many witnesses were heard and there was ample substantial evidence for the jury to find that appellant had a motive to commit the crime and was the sole participant therein.
Appellant’s contention on the second question is that the state attorney improperly in his closing argument referred to the appellant’s past criminal record. The argument of the state attorney does not appear in the record, except for what is shown in the motion for new trial, hut such motion is not self proving. The court is unable therefore to review the question. Norris v. State 150 Fla. 686, 8 So. 2d 493; Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59, 191 So. 36; Hulst v. State, 123 Fla. 315, 166 So. 828.
We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Section 924.32, Florida Statutes 1941, and F.S.A., reviewed the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, with the result that we find no reversible error is made to appear and the evidence does not reveal that the ends of justice require a new trial to be awarded.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed,
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur. DREW, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. State, 140 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1962)…one is, is found in Hulst v. State, supra, which concludes with the statement, “so there is nothing in the record regarding the statement said to have been made by the state attorney which this court can review.” See also Brooks v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 914. In compliance with § 924.32(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., we have read the evidence and do not find that the ends of justice require a new trial. The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed. Affirmed. ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW, THO…
-
Singleton v. State, 183 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…in Ailer, however, was considered upon its merits by this Court because the factual making of the comment had been given certitude and vitality by the trial Judge in a five-page Order denying the Motion for New Trial. In Brooks v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 914, the Supreme Court said: “Appellant’s contention on the second question is that the state attorney improperly in his closing argument referred to the appellant’s past criminal record. The argument of the state attorney does not appear in the record…
-
Alberta E. Ailer v. State, 114 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…er argument of a prosecuting attorney to a jury does not appear in the record, a motion for new trial averring the alleged improper remark is not self-proving and cannot activate such remark as a basis for error on appeal. Brooks v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 914; Holloman v. State, 1939, 140 Fla. 59, 191 So. 36; and White v. State, 1935, 121 Fla. 128, 163 So. 403. But as heretofore delineated, the record actually reveals circumstances that remove the present issue from the scope of the stated rule. The tria…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mahlon Hulst v. State, 123 Fla. 315 (Fla. 1936)
- Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1939)
- Odom v. State, 150 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1942)
- News-Journal Corp. v. Gore, 150 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1942)
- Norris v. State, 150 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1942)
- State v. Millard F. Caldwell, 157 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1946)
- Lewis v. State, 157 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1946)