Skip to main content

Hubbard v. State

Citations

  • 37 Fla. 156

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — prejudicial questions on voir dire — oral CHARGES—IGNORING DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN CHARGE.</p> <p>1. On the examination of the jurors on their voir dire the judge, expressly naming each one of the prisoners counsel asked of each juror if said counsel or any one had talked with him about the case, or spoken to, or had any conversation of any kind whatever with him relative to the case: Held, That the question tended to prejudice the defendants’ case from the pointedness of its aim at their defending counsel: that if such questions became necessary, they should be more generally framed, with less pointedness at any particular counsel in the case. That the utmost care should always be used by trial judges, especially in capital cases, not to let any expression fall, either by questions or otherwise, that is capable of being interpreted by the jury as an index of what he thinks of the prisoner, his counsel or his case.</p> <p>2. The provisions of section 2920 of the Revised Statutes are mandatory, and positively require that the charge of the court in capital cases shall be wholly in writing; and if, in such a case, any portion of the charge is given orally, and exception thereto is properly and seasonably taken, it is ground for reversal, as such provisions of law are required to be complied Vvith strictly. If the manner of giving the charge is not excepted to promptly at the time it is given orally, it will be considered as waived, and is not ground of reversal.</p> <p>3. It is error to instruct the jury in a murder trial, that before a defendant can be justified in taking the life of his assailant he must satisfy the jury that the defense was necessary at the time, that he did all he could to avoid it, and that it ivas necessary to protect his own life, etc. The established rule of law is, that if the evidence upon this or any other material question in the case goes far enough to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, it is suff

Judges: Taylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are 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.