Thomson v. State
Citations
- 78 Fla. 400
- 83 So. 291
Syllabus
<p>' 1. Where the defense of insanity is relied upon, the rule in. force in this State is, that if the evidence introduced tends to rebut the presumption of sanity on the part of the ¡accused, and the jury, after due consideration of all the evidence, entertain a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, it is their duty to acquit.</p> <p>2. The statutory definition of murder, “the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed,” includes the element of a rational agency, and it devolves upon the State to show this as well as any other element of the crime. The law, however, presumes that all men are sane, and in the ¡absence of evidence indicating a contrary state of mind, both court and jury are justified in acting upon this presumption; and where the evidence establishes the criminal act, and indicates nothing as t'o the mential capacity of the accused to commit the deed, a conviction is not only authorized, but should be had. If, however, there arises from the evidence, coming from any quarter, a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the accused, the presumption of the law is overcome and he is entitled to an acquittal, unless the State meets and overcomes this reasonable doubt arising in his favor.</p> <p>3. Where insanity of a permanent type, or of a continuing nature, or possessed of the characteristics of an habitual or Confirmed disorder of the mind, as distinguished from temporary or spasmodic mania, or disorders of mind produced by the violence ‘of disease, is shown to have existed a short time prior to the commission of an act, it is presumed to continue up to the time of the commission of the act, unless this presumption is overcome by Competent testimony.</p> <p>4. The verdict of a jury will not be set aside on evidence of facts complicated and contradictory and which require an investigation into the character and credit of witnesses whose testimony it is necessary to Compare and weigh;
Judges: Browne, Ellis, Taylor, West, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State of Oregon v. GarverOregon Supreme Court· 1950-12-19· cited 49×
- Hixon v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1964-06-17· cited 22×
- Britts v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1947-05-02· cited 18×
- McClure v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1958-07-15· cited 12×
- Brady v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1966-10-11· cited 11×
- Sallavirta v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1968-05-07· cited 6×
- Warner v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1955-06-15· cited 2×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-01-15· cited 68×
- Armstrong v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1892-06-15· cited 59×
- Thomas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1904-01-15· cited 27×
- Scott v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1912-06-15· cited 5×
- Barnes v. CarrSupreme Court of Florida· 1913-02-04· cited 2×
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.