ROY SYKES, 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.
Roy Sykes was convicted of manslaughter for killing Horace Matchett and appealed, challenging the jury instruction on self-defense and the sufficiency of evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the self-defense instruction was proper and that the evidence adequately supported the verdict.
The trial court's self-defense instruction was proper and not harmful error. The instruction correctly stated that a defendant reasonably free from fault need not retreat if retreat would increase peril, but must be reasonably free from fault and exhaust reasonable means to avoid taking life. The evidence was sufficient to support the manslaughter verdict.
“A defendant reasonably free from fault is under no duty to retreat from an assailant, where he reasonably believes that to retreat would increase his peril, but in order to justify a killing under the claim of self defense, the slayer must be reasonably free from fault in bringing on the difficulty.”
Sets forth the core rule on self-defense requiring the defendant to be free from fault and unable to retreat safely
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoy Sykes was indicted for murder in Saint Lucie County, Florida in Fall Term 1913. He was tried and convicted of manslaughter for killing Horace Matc…
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
Hocker, J.
Roy Sykes was indicted at the Fall Term, 1913, of the Circuit Court of Saint Lucie County, Florida, for the murder of one Horace Matchett. He was tried at that term, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to the State' Prison at hard labor for two years. He has brought the judgment here for review on writ of error. The first question presented here challenges the follow; ing instruction by the trial judge to the jury: “A defendant reasonably free from fault is under no duty to retreat from an assailant, where he reasonably believes that to retreat would increase his peril, but in order to justify a killing under the claim of self defense, the slayer must be reasonably free from fault in bringing on the difficulty. He must not have been the intentional aggressor in bringing on the difficulty, and he must have resorted to all reasonable means (within his knowledge) and at his command, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the necessity of taking human life. If the defendant was the intentional aggressor, or if the defendant was not reasonably free from fault in bringing on the difficulty, or if there were any other reasonable means at the defendant’s command (within his knowledge) consistent with his own safety, to which he could have resorted instead of killing the deceased, if he did kill him, then he could not justify his act on the ground of self-defense.” It seems to us that this instruction is in substantial agreement with an instruction given by the trial judge in the case of Peadon v. State, 46 Fla. 124, text 134, 35 South. Rep. 204, and with the views of this court in other cases. But it is contended under the facts of this case it was harmful inasmuch as the defendant was not required to retreat to the wall as the homicide took place on a porch of the boarding house where the accused boarded, the same being his castle or home.
It is to be remarked that the defendant did not request an instruction modifying the instruction which was given and is now attacked. The judge’s charges were exceedingly full, and very clear upon the general law of self-defense. In addition he gave three special instructions requested by the defendant, which was all he was request ed to give. The facts in this case do not satisfy us that the defendant was entitled to any modification of the rule which was. laid down in the instruction which is excepted to. At least we feel sure that if the defendant desired the law of self-defense as applied to one defending himself in his own home to be given to the jury, he should have presented such an instruction to the trial judge, which was not done. Carr v. State, 45 Fla. 11, 34 South. Rep. 892.
The next assignment questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. A careful study of the evidence satisfies us that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict which was rendered.
The judgment below is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…o (Bynum v. State, 46. Fla. 142, 35 South. Rep. 65), should be and is considered in determining whether ‘ ‘ the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” See Witherspoon v. State, 76 Fla. 445, 79 South. Rep. 449; Sykes v. State, 68 Fla. 348, 67 South. Rep. 121. “The mere fact that technical error was committed by the trial court in some of its rulings may not be sufficient; the errors must have been harmful or prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff in error. ’ ’ Danson v. State, 6…
-
Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1917)…harge upon any question of law unless the party desiring it shall have requested charges thereon.” Also see McDonald v. State, 55 Fla. 134, 46 South. Rep. 176; Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 399, 59 South. Rep. 946, Ann. Cas. 1914 B, 897; Sykes v. State, 68 Fla. 348, 67 South. Rep. 121. We have carefully examined the evidence and are of the opinion that it is amply sufficient to support the verdict rendered. Having found no reversible errors of [*469] law or procedure, it follows that the judgment must be affi…
-
Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1919)…if the defendants had wished to have the jury more fully instructed upon any point in the case they should have specifically requested the desired instruction. Hicks v. State, 75 Fla. 311, 78 South. Rep. 270; Herndon v. State, supra; Sykes v. State, 68 Fla. 348, 67 South. Rep. 121; Gillyard v. State, 65 Fla. 322, 61 South. Rep. 641; Padgett v. State, supra; Carr v. State, 45 Fla. 11, 34 South. Rep. 892. In the last cited case the court held that: “Error can not be assigned of the judge’s failure to charge…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carr v. State, 45 Fla. 11 (Fla. 1903)
- Peadon v. The State of Frorida, 46 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1903)