
    J. A. Conner, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
    
    Division B.
    Decision Filed April 20, 1928.
    Petition for Rehearing Denied July 12, 1928.
    
      Evans Haile and Thomas W. Fielding, Jor Plaintiffs in Error;
    
      Fred H. Davis, Attorney General, and Boy Campbell, Assistant, for the State.
   Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court .being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Opinion Filed July 12, 1928.

Per Curiam. — Where the evidence clearly shows that a married woman actively aided and abetted in the commission of murder for which she and her husband were convicted, and that she was not acting under the influence or coercion of her husband, and the conviction accords with the facts and the law, the judgment will be affirmed.

Evans Haile and Thomas W. Fielding, for Plaintiffs in Error.

Fred H. Davis, Attorney General, and Boy Campbell, Assistant, for the State.

Rehearing denied.

Per Curiam.

J. A. Conner, Hoyt Conner and Mrs. J. A. Conner were indicted for murder in the first decree. Hoyt Conner was acquitted, J. A. Conner and Mrs. J. A. Conner were found guilty of murder of the first degree with a recommendation for mercy, and each was sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment was affirmed on writ of error, and a rehearing is asked.

The evidence clearly shows that J. A. Conner inflicted the fatal wound and that Mrs. J. A. Conner was present actively aiding and abetting in. the commission of the heinous crime; and it also clearly appears from the evidence that she was not acting under the influence or coercion of her husband. The conviction accords with the facts and the law. See 30 C. J. 790-792; Bibb v. State 94 Ala. 31, 10 So. 506, 33 Ann. St. Rep. 88; 13 R. C. L. 1241.

Rehearing denied.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.  