Cross v. State

Citations

• 73 Fla. 530
• 74 So. 593

Syllabus

<p>1. A11 indictment.charging one with the crime of assault with intent to commit murder and alleging that the assault was committed with a deadly weapon, embraces the charge of aggravated assault.</p> <p>2. The rule is settled in this State that if a party wishes to avail himself of the omission of the court to charge the jury on any point in his case, he must request the court to give the instruction desired.</p> <p>3. Upon a trial of one charged with the crime of assault with intent to commit murder, and the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree, the failure of the court to charge the jury \mero motu\ upon a lower grade of crime is not reversible error.</p> <p>4. In the trial of one charged with assault with intent to murder, a requested instruction in the following words is held to be correctly refused, where there is a full, instruction upon the subject of a reasonable doubt, vie.: “If from the testimony given in the trial of this case you should find that there are two equally reasonable and credible theories, one consistent with the defendant’s guilt, and the other consistent with the defendant’s innocence, it will be your duty as jurors to accept that construction of such testimony consistent with the defendant's innocence.”</p> <p>5. Evidence examined and found sufficient to support verdict.</p>