EARL THOMPSON AND EDWARD THOMPSON
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.
Earl and Edward Thompson were convicted of murder and sentenced to death for killing Joe Henry during a robbery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their conviction, rejecting their argument that the trial judge should have instructed the jury to view their confessions with great caution, because the appellants' own testimony corroborated the confessions and other evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict independently.
The trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction because the appellants testified to substantially the same facts as revealed by their confessions and the other evidence was sufficiently convincing to sustain the verdict without relying on the confessions alone.
“The appellants are brothers; they took one Joe Henry out to a secluded spot in the night time and killed him by striking him several blows on the head and cutting his throat. After the killing they placed his body in a creek; took his money, returned to a garage and attempted to have the blood stains removed from the car.”
Establishes the facts of the crime and the appellants' consciousness of guilt through their subsequent conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarl and Edward Thompson, brothers, took Joe Henry to a secluded location at night and killed him by striking his head and cutting his throat. They pl…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
The two appellants, Earl Thompson and Edward Thompson, were convicted of murder and sentenced to be electrocuted.
Each asked for a reversal of the judgment because the trial judge did not charge the jury that their confessions should be received and considered with great caution. This question was presented to the trial court for the first time on motion for a new trial. Appellants rely upon our opinion in Harrison v. State, 149 Fla. 365, 5 So. (2nd) 703. The trial court distinguished this case from the Harrison case because the appellants testified to substantially the same facts as revealed by the confessions and too the other evidence was sufficiently convincing to sustain the verdict without the confessions. In drawing this distinction we find the action of the trial court without error. In the Harrison case the defendant not only explained why he made the confession but denied his guilt and this Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the verdict without the confession.
In the case at bar the situation is quite different. The appellants are brothers; they took one Joe Henry out to a secluded spot in the night time and killed him by striking him several blows on the head and cutting his throat. After the killing they placed his body in a creek; took his money, returned to a garage and attempted to have the blood stains removed from the car. Within a short time appellants were arrested, whereupon they directed the officers to the body and admitted the killing. The only excuse given by them for the brutal deed is that they were drunk; that a fight started when deceased made derogatory remarks about appellants’ mother; that in the course of the fight the deceased fell from a blow on the head by a piece of iron and that appellants decided to finish him by cutting his head practically off and concealing his body in a creek after going through his pockets and getting his money.
We can find no jurisdiction for the foul act in appellants’ own testimony. Against their evidence however it appeared that deceased was expecting to be married to appellants’ mother in the near future; that while appellants habitually *325used intoxicating liquor to excess they were in their right minds when they committed this deed and the motive was robbery; that their desire for deceased’s money far outweighed any kindly feeling they had for him or their mother.
Great stress is laid upon the mother’s testifying for the state. It is most novel, yet it does not appear that she bears any malice toward her sons and surely it has not been shown that she did anything but testify to the truth. Perhaps if more mothers would be more exacting of their children in their earlier life, fewer sons would end in this fashion.
It is our conclusion that this case is ruled by Boston v. State, 153 Fla. 698, 15 So. (2nd) 607, rather than by Harrison v. State, supra.
All other questions have been duly considered; the records and briefs have been thoroughly studied, and finding the record free of error, the evidence sufficient, the judgment is affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN,- CHAPMAN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ike Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960)…en the state relied entirely on a confession and the trial judge had failed to ascertain its voluntary character. In both of these cases there was no other evidence which would have supported the conviction. On the other hand, in Thompson v. State, 154 Fla. 323, 17 So. 2d 395, also a capital case, the trial judge failed to instruct on the weight to be given a confession. We held that this was not a fundamental error because there was other evidence adequate to sustain the conviction even in the absence of…
-
Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)…them with “great care and caution.” It is true that we have held that such confessions should be weighed by the jury with great caution. Harrison v. State, 149 Fla. 365, 5 So. 2d 703; Boston v. State, 153 Fla. 698, 15 So. 2d 607; Thompson v. State, 154 Fla. 323, 17 So. 2d 395 : Melton v. State, 159 Fla. 106, 30 So. 2d 916. In the instant case, after a thorough investigation to determine, the voluntary nature of the confession the trial judge, in sum, advised the jury that confessions which are obtained wit…
-
Norman v. Gloria Farms, Inc., 668 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…n the state relied entirely on a confession and the trial judge had failed to ascertain its voluntary character. In both of these cases there was no other evidence which would have supported the conviction. “On the other hand, in Thompson v. State, 154 Fla. 323, 17 So. 2d 395, also a capital case, the trial judge failed to instruct on the weight to be given a confession. We held that this was not a fundamental error because there was other evidence adequate to sustain the conviction even in the absence of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrison v. State, 5 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1942)
- Boston v. State, 153 Fla. 698 (Fla. 1943)