URBAN THERON JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Urban Theron Jones appeals his jury conviction for second-degree murder, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions regarding manslaughter, the admission of his oral confession, and the identification of physical evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms his conviction, finding substantial evidence supported the verdict and no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary and instructional rulings.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds. Substantial competent evidence supported the jury verdict and would not be disturbed on appeal. The failure to give manslaughter instructions was not reversible error absent objections or requests for such charges. The oral testimony regarding the confession was properly admitted because the corpus delicti was established and the confession was voluntary with proper warnings. The lug wrench was sufficiently identified through Jones's own testimony and officer identification.
“since the jury's verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to jury verdicts based on conflicting evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was prosecuted for second-degree murder in Dade County following a death. There was conflicting evidence regarding Jones's actions that resulted…
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 Adequate Provocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant below, Urban Theron Jones, appeals from a finding and adjudication of guilt after a jury trial in a prosecution for murder in the second degree in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida.
He challenges first the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the jury that he was guilty of second degree murder.
There was conflicting evidence given by the defendant as to his actions which resulted in the death of the decedent. The jury resolved these conflicts against the defendant, and since the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.
Defendant’s contention that the charges given to the jury were incomplete because there was none given as to manslaughter resulting from adequate provocation, is without merit. There were no objections to the charges; no requests for the specific charge; no objections to the failure to give a charge, and there is therefore no reversible error in the failure to give charges not warranted by the evidence. See Section 918.10(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Foreman v. State, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 308; Fleming v. State, 155 Fla. 735, 21 So.2d 345 (1945); Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 793; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 379.
Defendant also claims reversal because a written confession taken from him by the police was not introduced into evidence and oral testimony by police officers concerning his confession was admitted. There is no showing that his admission or confession was involuntary or that any threats or promises were made to him at the time of his confession. He was advised of his right to an attorney; was offered an opportunity to contact his attorney; was advised that he did not have to make a statement unless he did so of his own free will and accord, and that any statement which he made would be used against him in future court proceedings.
The evidence was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti prior to the introduction of the oral testimony of the officers concerning the defendant’s incriminating statement,1 and the oral testimony was properly admitted into evidence.2
*831Defendant also claims error because the trial court admitted into evidence the lug wrench alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime, inasmuch as it was not properly identified nor connected with the defendant at the time of the homicide. A review of the record indicates that the following question was asked the defendant concerning the lug wrench used in killing the decedent:
"Q So, you reached out to grab something. Was it just a coincidence that you grabbed this (indicating) ? Is that right?
“A Yes, it was.
It appears that this was sufficient evidence by the defendant himself to link the exhibit with the defendant and the murder. The question of the identification of the exhibit was sufficiently established by an officer who identified it by date, report number and his name on the lug wrench. See Urga v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 719.
For these reasons, the judgment and sentence of the trial court be and the same is hereby affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maugeri v. State, 460 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…d 862 (1982). We likewise reject the defendant’s contentions concerning the failure of the trial court to grant a self-defense instruction on its own motion, when the charge had deliberately not been requested by defense counsel, see Jones v. State, 197 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Finally, no error was involved in the fact that, without objection, the defendant was not present during a portion of the charge conference. Randall v. State, 346 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
Hood v. State, 287 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…appeal; likewise, allegedly improper arguments of a prosecuting officer will be reviewed only when an objection is timely made. Henry v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 78; Alford v. State, Fla.App.1973, 280 So. 2d 479; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 829. By reason of not having proceeded in accordance with the foregoing and finding that the matters complained of for the first time on appeal do not constitute fundamental error, the defendant cannot now raise as error the trial court’s instructions o…1 / 2
-
Garcia v. State, 204 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
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
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Diamante Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Hamilton v. State, 152 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Hodges v. State, 176 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1965)
- Foreman v. State, 47 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1950)
- Williams v. State, 109 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Williams v. State, 185 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Fleming v. State, 155 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1945)