Barlow v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barlow v. State

255 So. 2d 559, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5627

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1971

DocketNos. O-469, O-470

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 So. 2d 559 (Barlow v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barlow v. State, 255 So. 2d 559, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5627 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

The appellants are husband and wife. They were jointly informed against, charged with “wantonly and maliciously” shooting “at and into a dwelling house” which was then and there occupied by one James Tolbert, contrary to chapter 790.19, General Laws of Florida. They were both convicted guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced each to five years in state prison.

[560]*560Appellants have raised several points on appeal, some of which are without merit. The points which appear to merit discussion by us will be enumerated hereinafter.

We recognize the rule that the appellate courts will not substitute their judgment for that of a jury on disputed questions of fact; however, it is the duty of the court to review the evidence to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and judgment in the lower court.

In this case there was sufficient evidence that there was a shot fired by the defendant, Vernon Barlow, which went into the roof of the front porch. It is apparent that there was no effort to do personal harm to the occupants of the dwelling, but we believe, and so hold, that the statute and the information are broad enough to cover the acts of said appellant and the jury was justified in returning the verdict as to the said Vernon Barlow, although the question of maliciousness was very weak.

As to Betty Barlow, we think the evidence fails to support the charge that the said Betty Barlow did knowingly aid, abet and counsel or otherwise procure the commission of the crime, to wit the shooting. The most the evidence shows about Betty Barlow was that she was there and did take part in the ruckus, but there is no evidence that she knew Vernon had a gun or that she, encouraged him to use it. Therefore, as weak as the evidence is against Vernon Barlow as to malice, we cannot agree with the finding of the jury as to Betty Barlow, and the conviction of Betty Barlow, and judgment and sentence are hereby reversed and set aside.

Affirmed as to appellant, Vernon Barlow, and reversed as to Betty Barlow.

SPECTOR, C. J., and MILLS, E. R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOHNSON, Judge.

The appellants are husband and wife. They were jointly informed against, charged with “wantonly and maliciously” shooting “at and into a dwelling house” which was then and there occupied by one James Tolbert, contrary to chapter 790.19, General Laws of Florida. They were both convicted guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced each to five years in state prison.

[560]*560Appellants have raised several points on appeal, some of which are without merit. The points which appear to merit discussion by us will be enumerated hereinafter.

We recognize the rule that the appellate courts will not substitute their judgment for that of a jury on disputed questions of fact; however, it is the duty of the court to review the evidence to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and judgment in the lower court.

In this case there was sufficient evidence that there was a shot fired by the defendant, Vernon Barlow, which went into the roof of the front porch. It is apparent that there was no effort to do personal harm to the occupants of the dwelling, but we believe, and so hold, that the statute and the information are broad enough to cover the acts of said appellant and the jury was justified in returning the verdict as to the said Vernon Barlow, although the question of maliciousness was very weak.

As to Betty Barlow, we think the evidence fails to support the charge that the said Betty Barlow did knowingly aid, abet and counsel or otherwise procure the commission of the crime, to wit the shooting. The most the evidence shows about Betty Barlow was that she was there and did take part in the ruckus, but there is no evidence that she knew Vernon had a gun or that she, encouraged him to use it. Therefore, as weak as the evidence is against Vernon Barlow as to malice, we cannot agree with the finding of the jury as to Betty Barlow, and the conviction of Betty Barlow, and judgment and sentence are hereby reversed and set aside.

Affirmed as to appellant, Vernon Barlow, and reversed as to Betty Barlow.

SPECTOR, C. J., and MILLS, E. R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 So. 2d 559, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlow-v-state-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack