EMMET THOMAS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Emmet Thomas was convicted of murdering Ruby Barnes and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction on a writ of error, rejecting challenges to the trial court's jury instructions on circumstantial evidence and the sufficiency of evidence for premeditation.
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge on circumstantial evidence because no request was made and the case did not depend on circumstantial evidence, and that premeditation was sufficiently established by evidence of prior threats, the broken relationship, and the manner of the killing.
“Ruby's throat and other parts of her body were cut with a razor, and her mother testified to seeing Thomas when he made the last cut, just before he jumped out of the window and escaped.”
Establishes the direct evidence of the crime and eyewitness testimony from Ruby's mother, defeating any argument that the case relied on circumstantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEmmet Thomas and Ruby Barnes had lived together as man and wife without being married. After she ended the relationship and moved to her parents' home…
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 Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Emmet Thomas was convicted of the murder of Ruby Barnes, alias Ruby Hogan, and to the death sentence pronounced against him for this murder, he prosecutes this writ of error. The first assignment of error is that tbe court failed to charge upon circumstantial evidence. The court was not requested to so charge, and the case does not depend upon circumstantial evidence. Ruby’s throat and other parts of her body were cut with a razor, and her mother testified to seeing Thomas when he made the last cut, just before he jumped out of the window and escaped. Other witnesses testified to seeing Thomas and Ruby together just a few minutes before the homicide.
The only other assignment argued is based upon the sufficiency of the evidence as to premeditation. There was evidence of threats to kill the girl made a month or more prior to the actual killing — the two had lived together as man and wife, though not married, and she had broken off this relationship; he had followed her to the home of her parents, they quarreled about resuming the relationship and she refused. At the mother’s insistence she goes into the house to. make him a cup of coffee. When they get into the room to themselves he begins slashing her with a razor, a favored weapon of the negro race, finally breaking it off in her neck. We think premeditation sufficiently appears.
It is argued in the brief that the court erroneously permitted deputy sheriffs to testify as to alleged con fessions. No assignment of error presents this ruling for our consideration.
We are clear that the State’s case was fully made out, and that error has not been shown.
The judgment is affirmed.
Tavlor, C. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brady v. State, 190 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…witnesses who observed defendant gave no evidence which would suggest an epileptic seizure. We therefore hold that the court did not err in refusing the informal request for an instruction which was not required by the evidence. See Thomas v. State, 69 Fla. 692, 68 So. 944 (1915); Flint v. State, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 552. Appellant’s third point urges error in the court’s refusal to direct a verdict upon the issue of insanity. Appellant argues that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to show t…
-
Cain v. State, 70 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1954)…ief in this Court. The evidence was more than sufficient to support the verdict of guilty under the second count. The penalty was the proper penalty for a judgment of guilty on the second count. There is no merit to this contention. Thomas v. State, 69 Fla. 692, 68 So. 944; Hysler v. State, 136 Fla. 563, 187 So. 261. We have carefully considered the record in this case and the other questions presented are not of sufficient importance to merit a detailed discussion. It is sufficient to say that they are w…