Stokes v. State
Citations
- 54 Fla. 109
Syllabus
<p>1. No error is made to appear in the court’s overruling a challenge of a talesman for cause, when, the bill of exceptions does not show that the defendants challenged the proposed juror peremptorily, and it is made affirmatively to appear that the proposed juror did not sit on the jury.</p> <p>2. In a trial for murder in the first degree, the trial judge gave the following charge to the jury: “I now define to you murder in the first degree: The unlawful killing of a human being when perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or any human being, or when committed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery or burglary, is murder in the first degree. Premeditation is defined as meaning intent before the act,,but not necessarily an intent existing a»y extended time before the act. Premeditated design to kill means an intent to kill; design means intent, and both words imply premeditation. The premeditation need not be for any particular length of time, but it, of course, must be of sufficient duration to enable the slayer, under the circumstances of each case, to form a distinct and conscious intent to kill.”</p> <p>In the opinion of Taylor, P. J. and Plocker, and Parkhill, J. J. this charge is erroneous and misleading as a definition of murder in the first degree. Shackleford, C. J. and Cockrell, and Whitfield, J. J. not concurring, the question presented by this charge is not decided.</p> <p>3. The above instruction does not contain two distinct propositions, and is not subject to the well settled rule that where the charge of the court to the jury embraces several distinct propositions, a single general exception to the charge as given is not available, if any one of the propositions is correct.</p> <p>4. In a prosecution for murder, a charge that, “On the question of intent on the part of the defendants and the purpose of their prior 'engagement to meet and settle the difficulties, whethe
Judges: Parkhill, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Commonwealth v. TuckerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1905-11-28· cited 234×
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 49×
- Ernest v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1883-06-15· cited 25×
- McCoggle v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1899-06-15· cited 20×
- Kelly v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1872-07-01· cited 17×
- Keigans v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-06-15· cited 12×
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.