HAMILTON GRIFFIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hamilton Griffin was convicted of assault with intent to murder and sentenced to five years in prison. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to witness competency, jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence.
The trial court properly allowed the youths to testify based on the judge's discretion in assessing their competency. The refusal to instruct that the jury must find premeditated design was proper because assault with intent to murder does not require proof of premeditation; the offense is committed with an intent to take life regardless of premeditation. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
“The crime is not an assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, but an assault with intent to commit murder, and the offense is equally committed whether done with or without a premeditated design to effect the death of a particular individual, there being an intent to take life.”
Establishes that premeditation is not an element of assault with intent to murder, distinguishing it from first-degree murder.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHamilton Griffin shot Rodney Gwynn. Three eye witnesses to the shooting were boys aged thirteen, fourteen, and sixteen years old. The defendant was fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Hamilton Griffin was found guilty of an assault with intent to murder and sentenced to a term of five years in State prison.
The assignments of error argued here may be reduced to three heads, vis: those based on the competency of three youths as witnesses, the refusal of certain requested instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
Three eye witnesses to the shooting were boys aged thirteen, fourteen and sixteen years respectively, and, at the prisoner’s request, they were examined by the court as to the pains and penalties of perjury. The intelligence and comprehension of these boys could be determined better by the judge who had them before him than by us and we are not disposed, upon the record before us, to interfere with his discretion in permitting them to testify.
There are several assignments of error based upon the refusal to give charges numbered one to twelve, both inclusive. There was but one single exception to the refusal of these charges, and, under our repeated rulings, we need examine no further after seeing that one of those charges contains incorrect propositions of law. Lewis v. State, 42 Fla. 253, 28 South. Rep. 397, and cases cited. The first charge refused was as follows: “Before the jury can convict the defendant of assault with intent to murder they must be satisfied from the evidence before them that at the time the shooting took place, the defendant Hamilton Griffin had formed a premeditated design to effect the death of Rodney Gwynn.” Under the decisions of this court in the case of Davis v. State, 35 Fla. 614, 17 South. Rep. 565; Knight v. State, 42 Fla. 546, 28 South. Rep. 759, and Pyke v. State, 47 Fla. 93, 36 South. Rep. 577, this instruction was properly refused. The crime is not an assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, but an assault with intent to commit murder, and the offense is equally committed whether done with or without a pre meditated design to effect the death of a particular individual, there being an intent to take life.
The evidence was sufficient to have supported a verdict Of murder in the second degree at least, had the assaulted person died, and under the authorities above quoted, will not be disturbed by us.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Hocker, J., concur. Carter and Shackleford, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Whitfield, J., being disqualified, took no part in the decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buck Clinton and Edward Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98 (Fla. 1907)…judge did then and there overrule said objections and admitted said evidence, and permitted said witness to testify in the case fully against the defendants. To which ruling the defendants then and there excepted.” In the case of Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42, text 43, 37 South. Rep. 209, we used the following language: “Three eye witnesses to the shooting were boys aged thirteen, fourteen and sixteen years respectively, and, at the prisoner’s request, they were examined by the court as to the pains and…
-
Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1906)…, 44 Fla. 74, 32 South. Rep. 793; McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla. 525, 26 South. Rep. 734; Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 South. Rep. 836; Pittman v. State, 45 Fla. 91, 34 South. Rep. 88; Shiver v. State, 41 Fla. 630, 27 South. Rep. 36; Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42, 37 South. Rep. 209; Parnell v. State, 47 Fla. 90, 36 South. Rep. 165. The requested instruction numbered one refused by the court was as follows: “In this case the evidence shows that the defendant was and is justified under the law, in taking the…
-
Ammons v. State, 88 Fla. 444 (Fla. 1924)…South. Rep. 161; Ewert v. State, 48 Fla. 36, 37 South. Rep. 334; Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101, 41 South. Rep. 791. The same rule applies to charges requested and denied and an exception taken en masse. See Metzger v. State, supra; Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42; 37 South Rep. 209. Exception to refusal to charge- must be taken at the time of such refusal. It cannot be taken to- the ruling- on a motion for new trial based on such refusal. See Shepherd v. State, 36 Fla. 374, 18 South. Rep. 773; Lester v. Sta…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 42 Fla. 546 (Fla. 1900)
- Pyke v. State, 47 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1904)
- Davis v. State, 35 Fla. 614 (Fla. 1895)
- Lewis v. State, 42 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1900)