WILLIE STAFFORD, 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.
Willie Stafford was convicted of manslaughter for killing Jones in Holmes County. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting his arguments that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense principles that would not require retreat before using deadly force.
The trial court did not err in refusing the requested self-defense instructions because they failed to include the requirement that a person claiming self-defense must use all reasonable means within his power to avoid danger and avert the necessity of taking life, a limitation approved by the court in prior cases. The charge given by the court on self-defense was full, correct, and covered the facts of the case.
“They do not include the proposition that the defendant to justify his acts on the ground of self defense must have used all reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety, to avoid danger and to avert the necessity of taking the life of the deceased, a limitation which has been approved by this court in several cases.”
Explains why the requested instructions were deficient—they failed to include the requirement that a self-defense claimant must use all reasonable means to avoid conflict, a principle established in prior Florida precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStafford was convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court for Holmes County and sentenced to seven years in the state prison. At trial, there was ev…
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 Duty To Retreat cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of - manslaughter in the Circuit Court for Holmes county and to a judgment sentencing him to the State prison for seven years this writ of error was taken.
At the trial exception was taken to the refusal of the court to give each of three charges requested by the defendant as follows:
“A person upon whom a felonious assault is made is not required to retreat in order to avoid taking the life of his assailant, but if free from fault in bringing on the difficulty he may stand his ground and defend himself even to the extent of taking life, if necessary to protect himself.”
“If the defendant was the aggressor in bringing on the difficulty originally but afterward he honestly abandoned the difficulty and withdrew and Jones knowing this followed the defendant up and assaulted him with a rail likely to produce great bodily harm the defendant was not required to retreat but would be justified in standing his ground and defending himself even to the extent of taking life if necessary to protect himself.”
“If the defendant was not the aggressor in bringing on the difficulty in which Jones lost his life and that Jones assaulted him the defendant, with a rail likely to produce great bodily harm the defendant would be justified in standing his ground and defending himself even to the extent of taking Jones’ life.”
The refusal to give these charges cannot be said to be error under the facts of this case. They do not include the proposition that the defendant to justify his acts on the ground of self defense must have used all reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety, to avoid danger and to avert the necessity of taking the life of the deceased, a limitation which has been approved by this court in several cases. Peaden v. State, 46 Fla. 124, 35 South. Rep. 204; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, 37 South. Rep. 917. The charge given by the court as to self defense was quite full and correct and .covered the facts of the case.
Error is also assigned to the rejection by the court of evidence of threats made about fifteen months before by the deceased against “one of the Staffords” which were not shown to have been communicated to the defendant. Where as in this case, the acts of the participants at the beginning of the encounter are shown in evidence by eye witnesses without material variance, and evidence of threats made by the deceased against the defendant eight days before the difficulty were admitted without objection, and not contradicted, other threats made by the deceased against “one of the Staffords” more than fifteen months prior to the encounter were immaterial, and it was not error to exclude testimony as to such prior threats.
The evidence sustains the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur. Taylor, P. J., and Hocker, J., concur in the opinion.
Parkhill, J., being disqualified took no part in this decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Pell v. State, 97 Fla. 650 (Fla. 1929)…Fla. 4, 43 So. R. 593, said: It cannot be denied that it is the duty of a party to avoid a difficulty which he has reason to believe is imminent, if he may do so without apparently exposing himself to death or great bodily harm (Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 So. R. 106; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, 37 So. R. 917; Peaden v. State, 46 Fla. 124, text 135, 35 So. R. 204), and that whatever qualification this principle may in application have will depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.…
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…ctual and imminent, and the necessity real, in order that the slayer may be justified in acting upon his own belief to that effect. Green v. State, 43 Fla. 556, 30 South. Rep. 656; Fuentes v. State, 64 Fla. 64, 59 South. Rep. 395; Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 South. Rep. 106; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, 37 South. Rep. 917; Morrison v. State, 42 Fla. 149, 28 South. Rep. 97; Smith v. State, 25 Fla. 517, 6 South. Rep. 482; Alvarez v. State, 41 Fla. 532, 27 South. Rep. 40; Olds v. State, 44 Fla. 452,…1 / 2
-
Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1907)…xt 35, and other authorities. It cannot be denied that it is the duty of a party to avoid á difficulty which he has reason to believe is imminent, if he may do so without apparently exposing himself to death or great bodily harm (Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 South. Rep. 106; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, 37 South. Rep. 917; Peanden v. State, 46 Fla. 124, text 135, 35 South. Rep. 204), and that whatever qualification this principle may in application have will depend upon the circumstances of each p…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peadon v. The State of Frorida, 46 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1903)
- Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34 (Fla. 1905)