L. B. OWENS, 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.
L. B. Owens was convicted of manslaughter for shooting a man who threatened him with a hammer. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that requested jury charges on self-defense were properly refused because they were abstract and incomplete, and that a person claiming self-defense must use all reasonable means to avoid the necessity of taking life.
The trial court properly refused the requested self-defense charges because they were abstract and incomplete. To justify the taking of human life in self-defense, the accused must have used all reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger and avert the necessity of taking life. The charges that were given fairly and fully submitted the issues to the jury.
“In order to justify the taking of human life, the accused must have used all reasonable means within his power, and consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger to avert the necessity of taking human life.”
Establishes the legal standard for justifiable self-defense—that a person must exhaust all reasonable means to avoid using deadly force.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOwens went to the place where the deceased was plowing. After some words between them, the deceased raised a hammer and threatened Owens. Owens fatall…
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 Reasonable Force cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
This writ of error was taken to a conviction of manslaughter. The evidence shows that the accused went to the place where the deceased was plowing, and after some words fatally shot the deceased when the deceased had a hammer in his hand with which he threatened the accused. The court refused to give the following charges:
“If you believe from the evidence that the defendant Owens was not the aggressor in the transaction and that Stacey had raised a hammer as testified to and was in the act of throwing a hammer at the accused “the defendant had a right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to protect himself from said assault.”
“A man has a legal right to go wherever his legitimate business calls him and if he is assaulted has a right to stand his ground and defend himself.”
These charges are abstract' and incomplete. A direction that if the jury believed the deceased was in the act of throwing a hammer at the accused “then the defendant had a right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to protect himself from said assault,” does not cover the issue in this case.
In order to justify the taking of human life, the accused must have used all reasonable means within his power, and consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger to avert the necessity of taking human life. Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 South. Rep. 106.
The second charge above quoted is a mere abstraction, and the refusal of the court to give it is not error. Charges given fairly and fully submitted the issues to the jury.
There is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and no errors of law or procedure appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1924)…South. Rep. 362; Yates v. State, 26 Fla. 484, 7 South. Rep. 880; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. Rep. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 South. Rep. 535; Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 43 South. Rep. 593; Owens v. State, 64 Fla. 383, 60 South. Rep. 340; Doke v. State, 71 Fla. 633, 71 South. Rep. 917. The taking of human life is neither justifiable nor ex-susable where one fires the fatal shot or strikes the fatal blow after danger of death or great bodily harm to him from the…
-
Martin v. State, 86 Fla. 616 (Fla. 1924)…he life of a human being. See Peaden v. State, 46 Fla. 124, 35 South. Rep. 204; Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 South. Rep. 251; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, 37 South. Rep. 917; Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 South. Rep. 106; Owens v. State, 64 Fla. 383, [*624] 60 South. Rep. 340; Smothers v. State, 64 Florida, 459, 59 South. Rep. 900. ' There was no error in the refusal to give the requested instruction. No error having been made to appear by the record the judgment of the court is hereby affirm…
-
Tige Scholl v. State, 94 Fla. 1138 (Fla. 1927)…ep. 362; Yates v. State, 26 Fla. 484, 7 South. Rep. 880; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. Rep. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 South. Rep. 535; Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 43 South. Rep. 593; Owens [*1140] v. State, 64 Fla. 383, 60 South. Rep. 340; Doke v. State, 71 Fla. 633, 71 South. Rep. 917.” And the opinion in the case of Sanford v. State, 90 Fla. 337, 106 Sou. 406, in which the Court say: “The question of self-defense is one of fact, and where the evidence, though…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134 (Fla. 1905)