Kennard v. State
Citations
- 42 Fla. 581
Syllabus
<p>1. As a general rule a witness must depose to facts within his knowledge, and can not testify to matters of mere conjecture; but where a witness has knowledge of pertinent facts and speaks from a recollection of them as they actually appeared to him, though his impression may not amount to positive assurance, it is competent to be considered by the jury.</p> <p>2. In lawfully defending himself a man may take life when as a reasonably prudent person he has reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony on him or to do him some great personal injury and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished, though as a matter of fact there was no actual danger; but if he wrongfully occasions or brings about the necessity for his action, though as a prudent man he may have reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony on him or to do him some serious personal injury and there be imminent danger of such design being accomplished, he can not lawfully kill and justify his conduct on the ground of self-defence.</p> <p>3. An objection to a portion of a charge stating an abstract proposition of law on the ground that it is misleading may be removed by another portion covering the ground so fully as to leave no room for a misdirection of the jury.</p> <p>4. The mere statement in a motion for a new trial that the prosecuting officer made a certain statement to the jury, where the motion is overruled without a certificate from the judge that such statement was made, affords no evidence of the existence of such fact.</p> <p>3. It is proper for the trial court in charging the jury to confine a principle of law applicable to the case to the facts disclosed by the evidence.</p> <p>6. In considering an objection to a portion of a charge the entire portion bearing on the subject may be considered, and if the objection be removed when the entire portion is taken together, there is no ground of complaint.</p> <p>7. When the substance of requested
Judges: Mabry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Mathis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-01-15· cited 81×
- Cross v. AbySupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 30×
- Stinson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-11-08· cited 30×
- Wilson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1904-01-15· cited 21×
- Kinya v. Lifter, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-04-29· cited 20×
- West v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 16×
- Graham v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-12-19· cited 16×
- & SC13-1787 Steven Douglas Hayward v. State of Florida and Steven Douglas Hayward v. Julie L. Jones, etc.Supreme Court of Florida· 2015-06-25· cited 13×
- Freeman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-06-15· cited 13×
- Barton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-11-21· cited 11×
- Hall v. HardakerSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-01-15· cited 8×
- Oliver v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-06-15· cited 7×
- Marsh v. BennettSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-01-15· cited 6×
- Vermette v. Surf Drugs, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1969-09-30· cited 2×
- A & A Electric Services, Inc. v. JuradoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-08-26
Cites
2 cases in this archive are 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.