Kent v. State

Citations

• 53 Fla. 51

Syllabus

<p>1. In a prosecution for homicide a charge that even though it be found that the defendant may have made statements as to the manner of the death different from his testimony at the trial, there is no presumption of law from his doing so that his testimony is untrue, was properly refused, there being mo such presumption of law, and the credibility of the testimony -was for the jury to determine.</p> <p>2. Intent is not an essential element of the statutory definition of manslaughter when committed by culpable negligence; and charges predicated upon the theory that intent is in every case essential to the statutory crime of manslaughter are properly refused.</p> <p>3. The refusal to charge that “culpable negligence is not merely an omission to use ordinary caution and care, but must be the result of an intentional act or acts which are done without the exercise of ordinary care or caution,” is not error, since eujpable negligence is not necessarily the result of an intentional act.</p> <p>4. Where there is no error, and there is evidence to sustain the verdict, it will under the settled rule not be disturbed.</p>