Thompson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Thompson v. State

34 So. 2d 36, 160 Fla. 147, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 627

DecidedFebruary 13, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 34 So. 2d 36 (Thompson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. State, 34 So. 2d 36, 160 Fla. 147, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 627 (Fla. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

TERRELL, J.:

Appellant was tried on an indictment charging murder in the first degree and was convicted of manslaughter. On appeal he contends that the judgment imposed on him should be reversed because the jury box was fouled, that error was committed by the trial court in refusing the introduction of evidence as to threats by deceased against the life of appellant, and that the evidence made such a strong showing of self defense that it precluded a verdict of manslaughter.

The question as to the validity of the jury box we consider without merit.

*148 The evidence as to threats against the life of appellant and as to self-defense, was a matter for the jury to resolve. Taken as a whole, a perfectly reasonable deduction from it is, that appellant was smarting inside because of an altercation he had with the deceased the night before the homicide, and went to his place of business voluntarily and renewed the row which resulted in the homicide. He certainly did nothing to evade it. The evidence of self-defense is far from conclusive and the fact that appellant voluntarily went to the place of business of deceased and killed him, weakens his contention as to threats against his life by the deceased. At any rate, the jury considered all these conflicts and its verdict of manslaughter gave appellant the “breaks.” The evidence would have supported a higher degree of homicide, so he is not in position to complain.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

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

TERRELL, J.:

Appellant was tried on an indictment charging murder in the first degree and was convicted of manslaughter. On appeal he contends that the judgment imposed on him should be reversed because the jury box was fouled, that error was committed by the trial court in refusing the introduction of evidence as to threats by deceased against the life of appellant, and that the evidence made such a strong showing of self defense that it precluded a verdict of manslaughter.

The question as to the validity of the jury box we consider without merit.

*148 The evidence as to threats against the life of appellant and as to self-defense, was a matter for the jury to resolve. Taken as a whole, a perfectly reasonable deduction from it is, that appellant was smarting inside because of an altercation he had with the deceased the night before the homicide, and went to his place of business voluntarily and renewed the row which resulted in the homicide. He certainly did nothing to evade it. The evidence of self-defense is far from conclusive and the fact that appellant voluntarily went to the place of business of deceased and killed him, weakens his contention as to threats against his life by the deceased. At any rate, the jury considered all these conflicts and its verdict of manslaughter gave appellant the “breaks.” The evidence would have supported a higher degree of homicide, so he is not in position to complain.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 So. 2d 36, 160 Fla. 147, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-fla-1948.