Keigans v. State

Citations

• 52 Fla. 57

Syllabus

<p>1. The trial judge should not single out and give undue prominence to the testimony of the defendant and the fact of his interest in the result of the trial by instructing the jury to remember “the interest he necessarily must have in the result of the trial,” in’ considering the testimony of the defendant who has testified as a witness in his own behalf. .</p> <p>2. In a trial for murder in the first degree the trial judge gave the following charge to the jury: “The premeditated design to kill may have existed in the mind of the slayer for a month, a week, a day or an hour, or may have been formed a moment before the fatal shot was fired. If you believe from the evidence that the defendant shot and killed Hansel Norman as charged in the indictment, that he killed him without legal justification, ,or excuse, and that at the time he fired the shot which killed Hansel Norman, he intended to kill him, it would make no difference at what precise time he made up his mind to take Norman’s life. If, when he fired the pistol he intended to kill, he is guilty of murder in the first degree, even although he may not have had in his mind any such intention at the time he drew his pistol.”</p> <p>In the opinion of TAYLOR, P. J. and Justices HOOKER and PARKHILL this charge is erroneous and misleading in a definition of murder in the first degree. SHACKLE-FORD, C. J. and Justices COCKRELL and WHITFIELD not concurring. The question presented by this charge is, therefore, not decided.</p> <p>3. Under Revised Statutes, 2383, it is proper for the trial judge to instruct the jury as to the form of the verdict in case of conviction, directing them to specify in :he verdict the degree of unlawful homicide of which they may find the defendant to be guilty.</p>