DOCK DAVIS, 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.
Dock Davis was convicted of manslaughter in Circuit Court after being indicted for second-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Davis's claims that the trial judge improperly refused to give requested jury instructions.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the refusal to give instructions 2 and 3 was proper because instruction No. 3 was wholly irrelevant to the issues in a manslaughter trial (it addressed premeditated design, which is not relevant to second-degree murder charges), and instruction No. 4 was properly refused because it was predicated on facts for which there was no evidence in the record.
“where two or more refusals to give separate instructions asked for, are grouped together en masse in a single assignment of error, the appellate court will go no further in the consideration of such an assignment after finding that any one of such instructions was properly refused, but must then adjudge the assignment to have failed.”
Establishes the procedural rule for evaluating multiple grouped jury instruction refusals on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDock Davis was indicted for murder in the second degree and tried in the Circuit Court of Wakulla County. He was convicted of manslaughter instead. Da…
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 Premeditated Design cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred • to as the defendant, under an indictment charging him with murder in the second degree, was tried and convicted oí manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Wakulla County, and by writ of error brings the judgment and sentence here for review.
Under a single assignment of error the defendant groups the refusal of the trial Judge to give to the jury two separate requested instructions designated as 2 and 3. In consonance with the established rule here to the effect: that where two or more refusals to give separate instructions asked for, are grouped together en masse in a single assignment of error, the appellate court will go no further in the consideration of such an assignment after finding that any one of such instructions was properly refused, but must then adjudge the assignment to have failed. Peeler v. State, 64 Fla. 385, 59 South. Rep. 899; Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101, 41 South. Rep. 791; Ewert v. State, 48 Fla. 36, 37 South. Rep. 344, we find that this single assignment must be adjudged to have failed because the requested charge No. 3, the refusal to give which is included in said single assignment, was properly refused as it was wholly irrelevant to the issues or facts in the case. Such charge may have had some applicability in a trial for murder in the first degree, but the indictment charged the defendant only with murder in the second degree, and he was on trial for the latter offense, where premeditated design, dealt with by this charge, has no place.
The defendant also assigns as error the refusal of the court to give a charge designated as No. 4 requested by him. There was no error in this ruling; the requested charge was hypothesized on a state of facts of which there were no proofs. Charges to the jury must be predicated on facts in proof and must be applicable to such facts. The proofs fully sustain the verdict found, and finding no error in the record, the judgment of the court below in said cause is hereby affirmed at the cost of Wakulla County, the defendant having been adjudged to be insolvent.
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1927)…plies. When several objections are included in one assignment and all objections are not well founded the assignment fails. See Shiver v. State, 41 Fla. 630, 27 South. Rep. 36; Eggart v. State, [*155] 40 Fla. 527, 25 South. Rep. 144; Davis v. State, 66 Fla. 349, 63 South. Rep. 847. The seventh assignment based on the refusal of the court to allow in evidence x-ray pictures of the body of the deceased other than those showing the pistol bullet is without merit. It seems to have been counsel’s purpose to im…
-
Crawford v. State, 70 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1915)…uctions was properly given. Peeler v. State, 64 Fla. 385, 59 South. Rep. 899. The same rule applies to the eleventh assignment which groups in [*340] one assignment the court’s refusal to give nine charges requested by the defendant. Davis v. State, 66 Fla. 349, 63 South. Rep. 847. The general charge of the court was full, clear and impartially stated the law applicable to the case. The refusal to give charges number five and seven, which the defendant requested, were correctly refused, because fully cove…
-
Mercer v. State, 83 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1922)…h rulings are erroneous. See Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 South. Rep. 114; Bass v. State, 58 Fla. 1, 50 South. Rep. 531; Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 South. Rep. 749; Peeler v. State, 64 Fla. [*562] 385, 59 South. Rep. 899; Davis v. State, 66 Fla. 349, 63 South. Rep. 847. There was no error in the court’s ruling allowing the question to be propounded to the witness Isabelle Henderson. The question was in cross-examination, but the answer she gave rendered the interrogation harmless, even if the q…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1906)
- Peeler v. State, 64 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1912)
- Ewert v. State, 48 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1904)