Brown v. State
Citations
- 31 Fla. 207
Syllabus
<p>1. A charge that if the deceased was lawfully in possession of the house and premises when he was killed, and on which he was living at the time of the killing, he was as exempt from hostile intrusion, or from forcible or unlawful ejectment as if the place was his by fee simple title, and he has as good right to defend it from such intruder, even if that intruder claimed ownership of the property, as if the title was in him without dispute; does not assume tliat if the deceased was lawfully in possession of the house and premises the defendant was a hostile intruder with intent to forcibly and unlawfully eject the deceased. On the contrary, its propositions as to lawful possession and hostile and forcible intrusion and unlawful ejectment, are hypothetical.</p> <p>.2. A charge is not irrelevant when there is testimony to which it is applicable.</p> <p>3. Charging as to manslaughter in the second degree is immaterial to the defendant where there is a verdict of such manslaughter, and the testimony of the State clearly proves a higher degree of guilt, murder in the first degree, and it is apparent that the jury did not believe the testimony for the defense, which testimony, had the jury believed it, would have influenced a verdict of acquittal on the ground of self defense. Any error in the inapplicability of the charge to the case made by the testimony is harmless error,</p> <p>4. On an indictment for murder there may be a conviction of manslaughter in the second degree.</p> <p>5. The fact that the evidence would have sustained a verdict of murder in the first degree, does not render it insufficient to support a verdict of manslaughter in the second degree.</p> <p>6. Offenses committed prior to the Revised Statutes becoming operative, are still offenses under the statutes which punished them at the time of their commission. Such is the express purpose of Section 2853 of the Revision. Whether Section 32 of Article III of the Constitution inhibits a mitigation of pun
Judges: Raney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Coppolino v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1968-11-08· cited 59×
- State v. KiddNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1917-08-24· cited 51×
- McCoy v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-06-15· cited 44×
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1899-01-15· cited 39×
- Lee v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1979-02-27· cited 34×
- Gray v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-01-15· cited 33×
- Morrison v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-01-15· cited 32×
- Killen v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1957-02-20· cited 31×
- Raines v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-01-15· cited 30×
- Christopher Dean v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida· 2017-08-31· cited 20×
- Marshall v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-06-15· cited 19×
- Ammons v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-12-16· cited 19×
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-06-07· cited 15×
- Pulaski County v. CapleSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1935-09-30· cited 9×
- Blue v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-06-15· cited 4×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Potsdamer v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1880-06-15· cited 37×
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1889-06-15· cited 33×
- Ex parte PellsSupreme Court of Florida· 1891-06-15· cited 25×
- Pittman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1889-06-15· cited 23×
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1888-01-15· cited 19×
- Watson v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri· 1838-09-15· cited 8×
- Barnum v. BarnumSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1832-06-15· cited 7×
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.