VON DEE GRAGG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court modified a third-degree murder conviction, finding the evidence insufficient for that charge but sufficient for manslaughter. The court reduced the conviction to manslaughter.
The evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for third-degree murder, but it was sufficient to establish guilt for manslaughter.
“After having carefully reviewed the [*60] record, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient in law to sustain the verdict.”
This quote establishes the court's finding regarding the insufficiency of evidence for the original conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was tried for second-degree murder and convicted by a jury of third-degree murder. He appealed his conviction and sentence, raising thre…
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 Third Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of a third degree murder conviction and sentence based on a jury verdict
Appellant was informed against and tried for murder in the second degree. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the third degree. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied and he now prosecutes this appeal. In support of his appeal appellant contends:
(1) the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial based on a question asked of the trial judge by the jury,
(2) the trial court erred in allowing into evidence over objection photographs depicting the deceased and
(3) the evidence was legally insufficient to warrant or sustain his conviction.
Appehaut’s points one and two have been considered and found to be without merit. However, we find merit in point three. After having carefully reviewed the *60record, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient in law to sustain the verdict. There was nevertheless sufficient evidence to establish appellant’s guilt on a charge of manslaughter.
The judgment is therefore modified with directions to adjudge appellant guilty of manslaughter and sentence him as may be appropriate.1
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Albritton v. State, 221 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…arouse to a high degree of feeling the mind of any otherwise impartial juror. The fact that the photos were inflammatory and such as would arouse to passion is not alone sufficient to warrant their refusal in evidence. Gragg v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 59; Cullaro v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 40; Pleas v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So. 2d 647; Calloway v. State, Fla.1966, 189 So. 2d 617. But where admittedly gruesome and reasonably calculated to inflame the minds of the jurors, they can only be admiss…
-
Wright v. State, 250 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…idence that the propriety of admission of the photographs must be judged. ** The fact that the photos were inflammatory and such as would arouse to passion is not alone sufficient to warrant their refusal in evidence. Gragg v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 59; Cullaro v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 40; Pleas v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So. 2d 647; Calloway v. State, Fla.1966, 189 So. 2d 617. But where admittedly gruesome and reasonably calculated to inflame the minds of the jurors, they can only be admiss…
-
Lowell Wayne Roberts v. State, 195 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…hs admitted are irrelevant. They further substantiate and support the medical testimony offered by the state and are not so inflammatory and prejudicial as to require their exclusion. Belger v. State, 171 So. 2d 574 (D.C.A.Fla.1965); Gragg v. State, 177 So. 2d 59 (D.C.A.Fla.1965). Defendant contends in his fourth point that it was error to admit the testimony of the polygraph expert. Defendant had voluntarily submitted himself to the polygraph test administered by Mr. Allison, whose testimony was adduced a…
Authorities Cited
- Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1947)