Baker v. StateBaker v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Thomas
Lead Opinion
The plaintiff in error was convicted ol murder in the first degree under an indictment charging him with having been present aiding and abetting оne Alvin Tyler to kill John H. Surrency.
The sole question for decision is whether ‘the verdict of the jury was supported by the evidencе and was consistent with the charge of the court.
We havе read the testimony of the witnesses for the State and of thе defendant, himself, and are convinced that the conсlusion of the jury was’ fair and amply supported by the facts. The robbery was deliberately planned and as deliberatеly executed.
It was known by the conspirators that the deceased *28 would, on a certain day, return from ’the bank bеaring a considerable sum of mpney, and they were awаre also of the route he would take. Arrangements werе made for the use of a car belonging to an innocent party to divert suspicion from the participants. The defendant and Tyler, at the appointed time, succeeded in blocking a narrow road by parking their automobile diagonally. When the victim drew up behind them, Tyler went back to the сar occupied by Surrency, killed him and wounded his wife.
The defеndant meanwhile sat under the steering wheel of the borrowed automobile, and, when Tyler had carried out his murderous’ design, drоve him to a third conspirator who spirited both away from thе vicinity. .
Counsel has laid great stress on the testimony‘of the defеndant that immediately prior to the homicide he abandoned the plan and refused to play the part of “stick up man,” originally intended for him. This position is not well founded. He had many opportunities to withdraw and his persistence is evidenced by the fact that when he left the scene the one whо actually fired departed with him. See Smith v. State, 129 Fla. 388, 176 South. Rep. 506.
It has been urged, too, that the jury Should have included in their verdict a recоmmendation of mercy, thereby fixing as the punishm‘ent imprisonment for life. There was little upon which they could have based suсh a qualification, and, even with mitigating circumstances present, we believe this is not’ the forum where that feature may be considered.
The matter of reducing the penalty in convictions for murder in the first degree is within the province of the trial jury, in the first instance, and the power of commutation from the extreme penalty to imprisonment for life lies with the authоrity designated in the Constitution.
*29 The judgment is affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford, J., concur. Whi,tfield, P. J., and Chapman, J., concur in the opinion and judgment. Brown, J., dissents in part.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting in part) — -The State secured the> conviction of this defendant by introducing his own confession — a statement which went into all the details of this terrible crime. The State therefore vouched for the truth of this statement which was entirely free and voluntary, and it shows that the defendant, after agreeing with Hysler and the other negro tо “stick-up” and rob Mr. Surrency, when i‘c came to the actual execution of the conspiracy, backed down, аnd Tyler, the other negro, over this defendant’s protest, shot and killed Mr. Surrency. Under this state of facts‘, I do not think the jury was warranted in returning a death penalty verdict. A life sentence verdict would have been more appropriate.