Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Johnson v. State, 29 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1947)
158 Fla. 498; 1947 Fla. LEXIS 554
Thomas, Terrell, Chapman, McNeill, Buford, Adams, Barns

Johnson v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed.

THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., and McNEILL, Associate Justice, concur. BUFORD, ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., dissent.

Dissenting Opinion

BUFORD,. J.,

dissenting:

■ In this case the defendant in the court below defended on the right of self-defense.

As I read her testimony, it makes a clear case of self-defense.

I find the evidence adduced to overcome the evidence that defendant acted in self-defense extremely meager and unsatisfactory.

*499 It is well settled in this jurisdiction that in criminal cases where the evidence relied upon to establish some essential ■element of the offense was not satisfactory the judgment will be reversed. See Smith v. State, 101 Fla. 1066, 132 So. 840, and cases there cited.

Because of the fraility of the evidence to establish the fact that the accused did not act in her lawful self-defense, I think the judgment should be reversed.

ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
Mattie Johnson v. State of Florida
Status
Published