Johnson v. State
Citations
- 57 Fla. 18
Syllabus
<p>1. The statute authorizing the examination of persons to be committed to the State hospital for the insane does not contemplate an inquiry into the responsibility of persons for crimes committed, and' an adjudication- of insanity preparatory to committment to the hospital is not a proper matter for consideration in a trial for a crime.</p> <p>2. In a criminal prosecution where the issue of insanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offense is fully tried under a plea of not guilty, there is no error in refusing to allow a plea of such insanity to be filed which seeks in some of its averments to raise an immaterial issue.</p> <p>3. A formal plea that a defendant is insane when placed upon trial is not necessary. If upon observation or suggestion, it appears to the court that a question as to the defendant’s sanity exists, such issue may be determined by the court as may he deemed best under the law, and the trial awaits the determination of the issue. If the defendant is found to be insane, the trial will be postponed.</p> <p>4. All persons are presumed to be sane; and when insanity at the time of committing an alleged offense is relied on as a defense, and the evidence for the State does not raise a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the defendant when the offense was committed, it is incumbent upon the defendant to submit evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of his ¿uilt. If such doubt is raised by the evidence, the defendant should be acquitted. In such cases the verdict should state the ground of acquittal and the court should make appropriate orders under the statute.</p> <p>5. A certificate of the superintendent and physician of the State hospital for the insane, that the defendant was in 1908 “discharged from the hospital by order of the examining board, he not being insane,” is not admissible in evidence upon the issue-of insanity at the commission of the alleged offense in 1900. The admission in evidence of such certificate over ob
Judges: Account, Barkhill, Illness, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Parkin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1970-07-13· cited 63×
- Brock v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1954-01-05· cited 28×
- In Re Pickles'petitionDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1965-01-12· cited 13×
- Perry v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1962-07-20· cited 10×
- State v. DixonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1966-12-16· cited 8×
- Blocker v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-02-14· cited 6×
- Scott v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1912-06-15· cited 5×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-01-15· cited 68×
- Armstrong v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1892-06-15· cited 59×
- Putnal v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-06-15· cited 44×
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-01-15· cited 42×
- Reyes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-01-15· cited 8×
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.