Dixon v. State
Citations
- 13 Fla. 636
Syllabus
<p>1, Under an indictment for homicide, where the prosecutor seeks to introduce a dying declaration of the deceased in evidence, it should be first shown to.the satisfaction of the Court that at the time the declarations were made the deceased not only evidently considered himself in imminent danger, but that he evidently believed he was without hope of recovery. The circumstances under which the statements were made must he shown, in order that the Court may determine whether the statements should be given to the jury as dying declarations,</p> <p>a. The admissions and declarations of a person accused of crime are competent evidence, and may be proven without first showing that no . promise or threat had been held out or made to the accused to induce Mm to make the statements. If they shall be shown to have been made under improper promises or threats, they should not be received, or if already proved, the testimony should be rejected.</p> <p>3. It is not error for the Court to refuse to allow the question to be put to a witness, “ whether it was not possible that he might have misunderstood what the prisoner said.”</p> <p>4 It is error to allow a witness to give his “understanding” of the meaning of declarations made to him by a person accused of crime, unless the witness is an interpreter or expert.</p> <p>5. The person killed being a policeman, it is competent to give in evidence on a trial for murder threats of violence made by the accused shortly before the homicide against “ policemen,” though not particularly against the individual killed.</p> <p>6. The question put to a witness, “ Would you deem a man to be of sound memory and discretion who, under the circumstances, would make use of such an expression as he made in your store ?” was properly overruled,</p> <p>7. It is not error for the Court to refuse to repeat instructions already given to the jury.</p> <p>8. The Court charged the jury that “ when the killing has been proved, the accused must show that i
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- permitting introduction of prior threat against police officers in the prosecution of the killing of a police officer
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Baud
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Lester v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1896-01-15· cited 79×
- Hayward v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2009-12-10· cited 70×
- Holland v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1897-01-15· cited 58×
- Lowman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1920-06-10· cited 40×
- Hodge v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1890-01-15· cited 39×
- State v. LarkinsIdaho Supreme Court· 1897-02-11· cited 36×
- McDonald v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-11-09· cited 33×
- Morrison v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-01-15· cited 32×
- Richard v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 26×
- Bradway v. WaddellIndiana Supreme Court· 1884-04-25· cited 25×
- Copeland v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 23×
- Sherman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1880-06-15· cited 21×
- State v. GatesWashington Supreme Court· 1902-06-26· cited 19×
- Rawlins v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-01-15· cited 19×
- Malone v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-06-27· cited 16×
- Bennett v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1913-11-25· cited 14×
- Richardson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1920-10-30· cited 14×
- Fails v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1910-06-15· cited 13×
- Matire v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1970-02-09· cited 11×
- Gardner v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 11×
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.