Skip to main content

Scott v. State

Citations

  • 64 Fla. 490

Syllabus

<p>1. Where in a criminal prosecution the sanity of the defendant is in issue, non-expert witnesses cannot express a general opinion as tíb sanity, nor can they give an opinion independent of the facts and circumstances within their own knowledge; but they can detail the facts known to them which show insanity, and thereupon express an opinion as to the sanity of the person whose mental condition is being investigated. The value of such testimony will depend largely upon the opportunities of the witnesses for correct observation of the appearances and conduct of the person whose mind is claimed -to be unsound, as well as the character of such appearances and conduct.</p> <p>2. Where in a prosecution for murder, the sanity of the defendant at the time of the commission of the alleged crime is a material issue, and non expert witnesses have testified as to facts known to them and as to their opinions as to the sanity of the defendant based on such facts, and charges are given to the jury that such evidence is admissible, “but at the same time you should bear in mind that such evidence 18§ merely for your enlightenment and consideration” and that “you are not bound even to believe the facts and circumstances as sworn to, but you may, if you think they are true; but as to the inferences and deductions and opinions drawn by the witness from the facts sworn to, that is a matter of their belief and opinion, and you are not bound thereby, but should draw your own deductions and conclusions and opinions from the facts and circumstances as related by the witnesses should you believe them,” such charges in the connection used in this case may fairly be regarded as bearing upon the probative force of the opinions testified to; and such charges conflict with the rule that “the value of such testimony will depend largely upon the opportunities of the witnesses for correct observation of the appearances and conduct of the person whose mind is claimed to be unsound, as well as the

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.