DOCK IRELAND, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for assault with intent to commit murder, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding self-defense, despite the absence of the trial evidence.
No, the trial court did not err. The instructions, when read together, correctly conveyed that the necessity for self-defense need only be apparent, and that the force used should not exceed what is necessary for protection.
“In the one the court told the jury that a person assailing another may justify the act by showing its necessity to defend his own person from great bodily harm.”
Describes one of the jury instructions at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and sentenced to five years in prison. The appeal was based solely on alleged erro…
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.
Dock Ireland having been convicted of an assault with intent to commit murder and sentenced to a term of five years in the State’s prison, prosecutes his writ of error. The bill of exceptions contains none of the evidence, but only the charges and instructions given or refused.
The argument is confined to asserted error in the lan guage of two charges given upon self defense. In the one the court told the jury that a person assailing another may justify the act by showing its necessity to defend his own person from great bodily harm. The charge is criticised as intimating that the necessity must be real, no matter how apparent. If there be any basis for this criticism, it is removed by a subsequent charge to the effect that the necessity need be apparent only.
With none of the facts before us, it is impossible to find error in the qualification added to a charge upon the law of self defense, to the effect that the accused should not have “used any more force or violence than was necessary to protect himself from death or his person from great bodily harm.” Circumstances are readily conceivable rendering such modification appropriate, and beyond objection in form. Sigsbee v. State, 43 Fla. 524, 30 South. Rep. 816.
Judgment affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. E. Johnson Equip. Co., Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 238 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1970)…transactions a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, although the circumstances related more to a warranty comparable to the sales warranty of merchantability wherein the chattel must be fit for its ordinary intended purpose. . 66 Fla. 549, 64 So. 269, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 412 (1914). . See, i. e., Toombs v. Ft. Pierce Gas Co., 208 So. 2d 615 (Fla.1968) (sale of bottled gas in leased container that exploded brought into play dangerous instrumentality exception to privity requirement). . Berger v. E.…
-
Amoroso v. Samuel Friedland Fam. Enters., 604 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…es of merchantability or fitness for ordinary use. See Ford v. Highlands Ins. Co., 369 So. 2d 77, 78 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In fact, the Johnson court noted that the precursor for its opinion was its case of Williamson v. Phillipoff, 66 Fla. 549, 64 So. 269 (1914), which held that a bailed chattel must be of a character and condition as contemplated by the contract, and the bailor would be liable for damages caused by defects in the product. That standard is not appreciably different from an implied wa…
-
Peacock Motor Co. OF Marianna, Inc. v. Eubanks, 145 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…ence of negligence or violation of his special contract, for loss in respect of the thing bailed, resulting from the inherent nature or some infirmity of that property, itself, disaster, or accidental casualty. Williamson v. Phillipoff, 66 Fla. 549, 64 So. 269, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 412; Re Farmers State Bank, 67 S.D. 51, 289 N.W. 75, 126 A.L.R. 619. The bailee is not an insurer to the bailor for the loss of the property. Armored Car Service v. First National Bank of Miami (Fla.App.), 114 So. 2d 431; Adelman v.…
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
- Sigsbee v. State, 43 Fla. 524 (Fla. 1901)