Opinion
February 27, 1951.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, M.B. Smith, J.
Housholder Associates, Sanford, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. and Murray Sams, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to subparagraph (2) of Section 924.32, Florida Statutes 1941. same F.S.A., reviewed the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, with the result that we find no reversible error is made to appear and the evidence does not reveal that the ends of justice require a new trial to be awarded.
Judgment affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, ADAMS, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
CHAPMAN, J., concurs specially.
It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a premeditated design to kill and for this reason the case at bar is ruled by our holding in Douglas v. State, 152 Fla. 63, 10 So.2d 731. I have difficulty in following this theory when analyzing the evidence in its entirety. It is reasonable to assume that the appellant, at the time of payment for the bowl of chili and the dispute about the amount of the change arose, did not have his pistol with him, but thereafter obtained his .32 pistol and renewed his search for the deceased and upon finding him demanded the return of the amount of his change and, the same being refused by the deceased, the appellant fired three shots into the body of Willie Wallace, the deceased. The intention to kill is a question of fact for the jury, under appropriate instructions. The intent to kill arose in the mind of the appellant, as shown by the record, after the clash about the change and later when the defendant shot the deceased. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment entered below. See Section 782.04, F.S.A.