Vasquez v. State

Citations

• 54 Fla. 127

Syllabus

<p>1. Where on the trial of the defendant for murder, a shirt which had been used in argument, but not introduced in evidence, was carried by the jury into the j.ury room when they retired to consider their verdict, and this was done in the presence of the defendant’s attorney, who made no objection to the act of the jury, and did not call the judge’s attention to it, and it is not shown that the jury made any use of the shirt, such action of the jury is not a sufficient ground for a new trial.</p> <p>2. Where there is evidence from which the jury might have concluded that the defendant was the aggressor in the difficulty in which the defendant killed the deceased, a proper-charge applicable to that theory is not erroneous.</p> <p>3. A charge intended for the benefit of the defendant, and which could not under the evidence have been harmful to him does not furnish a good ground for a new trial.</p> <p>4. The following charge is not erroneous: “The defendant is presumed to be innocent until he is proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He is entitled to every reasonable doubt arising from the evidence, and a reasonable doubt is one conformable to reason, a doubt which a reasonable man would entertain. It does not mean a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending on moral -evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison, and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.” '</p> <p>5. Proof of an intent upon the part of the defendant to kill a particular individual does not exclude a conviction of murder in the second degree, under the statute of Florida defining that offence.</p>