Marshall v. State
Citations
- 32 Fla. 462
Syllabus
<p>1. Danger to many, or “ others,” is, under Section 2380, Revised Statutes, not an essential to murder in the second degree, as it was under Section 2, p. 350, McClellan’s Digest; and now proof of an intent upon the part of the accused to kill a particular individual, or “another,” does not exclude a conviction of murder in the second degree. Johnson v. State, MFla., 162,4 South. Rep., 535, approved and distinguished.</p> <p>'2. The fact that the evidence in a case may be sufficient to sustain a verdict of murder in the first degiee will not of itself preclude a conviction of murder in the second degree, as this degree is defined by Section 2380, Revised Statutes.</p> <p>3. Where it is sought to review the action of a trial court on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, all the evidence that was before that court must be presented to the appellate court or it will refuse to enter upon a consideration of the question.</p> <p>■4. Where a correct instruction is requested by the accused, it is error to refuse it as having been already more correctly given in accordance with the evidence, where the charge referred to as having given it more correctly makes essential to an acquittal conditions or propositions that are not contained in the rejected instruction.</p> <p>■5. Where a charge, if erroneous at all, is clearly favorable to the accused, he can not claim further consideration of it as a ground for reversal.</p> <p>■6. Where the State in making proof of its case ^puts in evidence the statements made to other persons by the accused of the circumstances of the killing, it is error for the judge to instruct the jury that “ for obvious reasons said statements and admissions should be received with caution,” where it can not be said that the jury’s understanding of the instruction was that caution should be exercised in his favor in weighing the statement.</p> <p>*7. The rules as to the admission in evidence of the accused’s declarations of the circum
Judges: Eattet
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Holland v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1897-01-15· cited 58×
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 49×
- McCoy v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-06-15· cited 44×
- Greene v. HoiriisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1958-05-15· cited 42×
- Morrison v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-01-15· cited 32×
- Mitchell v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-06-15· cited 25×
- Kirby v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-01-15· cited 21×
- Albritton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-06-15· cited 18×
- Holland v. WebsterSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-01-15· cited 16×
- Reynolds v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-01-15· cited 13×
- Alvarez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1899-06-15· cited 12×
- Vasquez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-06-15· cited 12×
- Pickett v. BryanSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-06-15· cited 10×
- Coley v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-05-04· cited 2×
- Gray v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-12-12
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Darry v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals· 1854-04-05· cited 67×
- Morris v. SternIndiana Supreme Court· 1881-11-15· cited 51×
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1888-01-15· cited 19×
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-01-15· cited 19×
- Hammon v. SextonIndiana Supreme Court· 1879-11-15· cited 19×
- Corbett v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama· 1858-01-15· cited 17×
- Shimer v. Butler UniversityIndiana Supreme Court· 1882-11-15· cited 16×
- French v. State ex rel. ManifoldIndiana Supreme Court· 1881-11-15· cited 15×
- Keep v. Kelly & LevinSupreme Court of Alabama· 1856-06-15· cited 5×
- Lurton v. CarsonIndiana Supreme Court· 1831-11-11· cited 5×
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.