Williams v. State
Citations
- 73 Fla. 1198
- 75 So. 785
Syllabus
<p>1. In the trial of one under an indictment for murder where the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, a verdict of manslaughter will not be disturbed upon the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to \\support a verdict of that degree of homicide.</p> <p>2. A question so framed as to require an affirmative or- negative answer as to a transaction having no relevancy to the issue is amenable to the objection that it calls for irrelevant testimony.</p> <p>3. In the trial of a- person charged with crime, a question embodying an insinuation against the knowledge of law or intelligence of a witness then being examined propounded by the State Attorney to a witness 'for the defendant and withdrawn upon objection by the defendant, is not such misconduct of the prosecuting officer as to require a reversal of the judgment.</p> <p>4. In the trial of one for murder where the evidence is circumstantial and there is evidence tending to show that thé deceased was killed by being shot with a firearm of a certain calibre, it is not error to admit in evidence the testimony of one that defendant owned and possessed a firearm of the same calibre.</p> <p>3. Deductions which may be reasonably drawn from the evidence are permissible in argument by counsel before the jury although such deductions may be questioned by opposing counsel.</p> <p>6. An instruction given by the court to the jury which admonishes them that circumstantial evidence when sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable' doubt is sufficient in quality and character of proof to sustain a conviction, is not rendered harmful to the degree of requiring a reversal of the judgment because the court subjoins to liis instruction an incorrect reason or theory upon which that character of evidence is admissible.</p> <p>7. Correct propositions of law applicable to the evidence which are contained in instructions given by the court in its general charge ne
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- state's evidence deemed sufficient to establish that defendant shot and killed the deceased, manslaughter conviction upheld
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ellis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Groover v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-12-17· cited 44×
- Killen v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1957-02-20· cited 31×
- Jones v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1985-02-26· cited 24×
- Herman v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1981-03-25· cited 21×
- Borders v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1975-04-01· cited 13×
- Smith v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1971-02-09· cited 5×
- Powell v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-12-02· cited 2×
- Hall v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1970-12-01
- Howell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1973-01-22
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- McCoy v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-06-15· cited 44×
- Fine v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-11-19· cited 35×
- Gray v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-01-15· cited 33×
- M'Rae v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-06-15· cited 21×
- Thomas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-01-26· cited 20×
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-01-15· cited 19×
- Bass v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 18×
- Hoskins v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-07-13· cited 15×
- Young v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-10-26· cited 11×
- Hawthorne v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-12-19· cited 8×
- Pelham v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-11-10· cited 7×
- Lampkin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-12-08· cited 5×
- Parker v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-07-13· cited 3×
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.