Blanton v. State
Citations
- 52 Fla. 12
Syllabus
<p>CRIMINAL LAW — CHARGES—BURDEN OF PROOF ON STATE IN HOMICIDE — REITERATING CHARGES — MISLEADING CHARGES.</p> <p>1. In a trial under an indictment charging murder in the first degree, it is not error to refuse an instruction so framed as to tend to mislead the jury into the idea that unless the evidence makes out a case of murder in the first degree they must wholly acquit, and can not convict of a lower degree of homicide.</p> <p>2. A charge is properly refused that is so framed as to hold out the idea that it is incumbent on the State to prove expressly by affirmative evidence that the homicide was without justification. No such duty devolves upon the State. The burden is upon the State in every prosecution for crime to establish by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, every material element of the crime charged; and in a prosecution for murder in the first degree it must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant slew the deceased unlawfully and from a premeditated design to effect his death, and if these material facts are established by proof, of necessity it will have been proved that such killing was not justifiable. The burden upon the State is to prove the affirmative proposition; the negative proposition, flowing out of it as a necessary corollary, it does not have to prove by express or affirmative proof.</p> <p>S. A charge is properly refused that is so'framed as to tend to mislead the jury into the belief that they are bound to lend the same credence to the testimony of the accused as a witness on his own behalf, as to that of any disinterested witness.</p> <p>4. There is no error in the refusal of the court to reiterate charges that have already been given in substance.</p> <p>5. It is not error to refuse to give a charge that is so framed as to tend to mislead the jury into the belief that the judge was satisfied that any material fact in the case had been established by the proofs.</p> <p>6. In a trial for homicide when the court has already
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.