ORSON WILLIAMS
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to prove premeditation and holding that the record did not properly preserve the issue of statutory non-compliance for review.
1. The appellate court could not determine if the statute was violated because the record did not contain an authenticated bill of exceptions proving the violation. 2. The evidence was sufficient to prove premeditation.
“We cannot determine the first question presented because the record does not show by authenticated bill of exceptions that the provisions of the statute were not complied with.”
Establishes the reason for not reviewing the first issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of first-degree murder without a recommendation for mercy. The conviction was appealed, raising two issues: wheth…
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 Premeditation cases and more on FLexlaw
The only two questions presented in this case, wherein the plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation to mercy, are:
1st. Whether or not the court below committed reversible error in not strictly complying with the provisions of' Section 6092 R. G. S., 8397 C. G. G. L., and
*411- 2nd. Whether or not the evidence was sufficient to prove 'premeditation.
We cannot determine the first question presented because the record does not show by authenticated bill of exceptions that the provisions of the statute were not complied with. The bill of exceptions contains the copy of a motion for new trial which alleges that the statute was violated, but such motion does not prove its allegations.
The evidence is so strong and convincing that the accused at the time he fired the fatal shot entertained a premeditated design and fully formed purpose to effect the death of his victim that no other reasonable conclusion could be reached.
The judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., .concur in the opinion and judgment.