HENRY F. RUSSELL, 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 manslaughter, holding that while the exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's reputation for carrying weapons might have been error, the substance of that evidence was later admitted. The court also found no error in refusing certain jury instructions because their substance was covered by other given charges.
The court held that any error in excluding the testimony about the defendant's reputation for carrying weapons was harmless because the substance of that evidence was later admitted. The court also held that it was not error to refuse requested instructions when their substance had already been covered by charges given by the court.
“Even if it was error to exclude the proffered testimony under the circumstances shown, the substance of the evidence offered was subsequently adduced and the defendant got the benefit of it.”
Establishes that the exclusion of evidence was harmless error because similar evidence was later admitted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Russell, was indicted for first-degree murder but convicted of manslaughter. He appealed, citing errors in jury charges and the rejecti…
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 Self-Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— Upon an indictment for murder in the first degree, Russell was convicted of manslaughter and on writ of error complains of specific charges given and refused and of rulings rejecting testimony as to the general reputation of the defendant for carrying arms .and concealed weapons. Even if it was error to exclude the proffered testimony under the circumstances shown, the substance of the evidence offered was subsequently adduced and the defendant got the benefit of it.
Appropriate charges upon self defense and upon other phases of the case as presented by the issues and the evidence, were given; and an instruction rquested by the defendant that “the previous good character of-the defendant, if proved to your. satisfaction in the case, you ought to consider, together with all other facts in evidence,” etc., therefore it was not error to refuse charges that evidence of good character mmt be considered, particularly as the charges given required the defendant to be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt of his guilt that may arise from the evidence.
It is not error for the court to refuse certain requested instructions when the substance of such requested instructions bad already been covered by charges given. Disney v. State, 72 Fla. 492, 73 South. Rep. 598; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hutchins & Co. v. Sherman, 82 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1921)…ed instructions which are substantially covered by charges which the court has given. Howard v. State, 78 Fla. 413, 83 South. Rep. 297; Long v. State, 78 Fla. 465, 83 South. Rep. 293; Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 South. Rep. 513, Russell v. State, 78 Fla. 223, 82 South. Rep. 805; Miller v. State, 76 Fla. 521, 80 South. Rep. 314; Hawthorne v. State, 72 Fla. 524, 73 South. Rep. 590; Hoskins v. State, 70 Fla. 186, 69 South. Rep. 701. Other questions presented are subordinate to that which we have discussed…
-
Pinkney v. State, 83 Fla. 550 (Fla. 1922)…ges already substantially given. Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 South. Rep. 224; Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 South. Rep. 513; Howard v. State, 78 Fla. 413, 83 South. Rep. 297; Long v. State, 78 Fla. 464, 83 South. Rep. 293; Russell v. State, 78 Fla. 223, 82 South. Rep. 805; Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527, 78 South. Rep. 526. The evidence is ample to sustain the verdict, so the judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Disney v. State, 72 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1916)
- Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1913)