SALLIE FURLOW, 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.
Sallie Furlow was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed her conviction, finding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on self-defense by requiring the danger to be not only imminent but also immediate and present, a heightened standard not supported by statute.
The trial court committed reversible error in modifying the statutory self-defense standard by instructing the jury that danger must be not only imminent but also immediate and then present. The statute's use of imminent means near at hand and close rather than touching, not requiring the danger to be immediate and present as the court instructed.
“Justifiable homicide under Section 3203 of the General Statutes, 'When committed in lawful defense, * * * when there shall be a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.'”
Establishes the statutory standard for justifiable homicide in self-defense requiring imminent danger.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSallie Furlow shot Kate Wells when Wells was approximately ten to twelve feet away and approaching Furlow in an angry manner. The case involved questi…
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 Imminent Danger cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
—Sallie Furlow was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to serve ten years in the State prison.
Several assignments of error are presented upon the refusal to permit various questions to be answered. We see' no possible harm to the defense in the court’s refusal to go into the marriage vel non of Tom and Kate Wells; the information sought had no possible relevancy to the issues here involved. Some of the questions were subsequently answered in full.
It is not shown that error was committed in rejecting testimony as to a supposed exclamation of Kate Wells just after she was shot. Assuming the exclamation came within the rule of res gestae, we are not advised what she is supposed to have said.
We think the defense was entitled to cross-éxamine the witness J. T. Wilson more fully than was permitted for the purpose of establishing, if it could, his bias or animus against Sallie or her husband. This witness was in many respects the State’s most important witness, and there is testimony that he had theretofore made contradictory statements. Upon his denial of bias or prejudice, it was permissible to inquire of him if he had not upbraided Katie’s husband for not trading with the witness.
The serious error committed, and upon which we plant this reversal, is in the court’s charge on self defense. Justifiable homicide under Section 3203 of the General Statutes, “When committed in lawful defense, * * * when there shall be a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” It will be noted that the statute uses the word imminent. The judge, however, has amended this by addition to “imminent, immediate and then present danger.”
In the instant case there was evidence that Kate Wells inflamed with anger was approaching Sallie, who shot when she was in ten or twelve feet of her. The danger may have been imminent, but it was not immediate and then present. Imminent means near at hand, mediate rather than immediate, close rather than touching. Under the definition as given by the court there could have been no self defense unless Kate was in striking distance.
An objection to another charge suggests that a line was dropped from a stereotyped instruction. We are not clear whether the omission is due to an oversight of the judge or to a clerical misprision in copying the transcript.
The judgment is reversed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1924)…onably cautious and prudent man to believe that the danger was actual and the necessity real in order that the slayer may be justified in acting upon his own belief to that effect. See Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105, 32 South. Rep. 896; Furlow v. State, 72 Fla. 464, 73 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. St…
-
Tige Scholl v. State, 94 Fla. 1138 (Fla. 1927)…nably cautions and prudent man to believe that the danger was actual and the necessity real in order that the slayer may -be justified in acting upon his own belief to that effect. See Land v. State, 44 Fla. 105, 32 South. Rep. 896; Furlow v. State, 72 Fla. 464, 73 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 [*114…
-
Ward v. State, 75 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1918)…ul self defense and there shall be a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or do some great personal injury “and there shall be imminent danger” of such design being accomplished, is justifiable. In the case of Furlow v. State, 72 Fla. 464, 73 South. Rep. 362, tried by the .same judge who presided at the trial of this case, we expressed the oxdnion that the words “imminent, immediate and then present danger” which were substituted in a charge upon self defense for the statutory words…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence