Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.