P. D. DIXON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANTS 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.
P. D. Dixon was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder after cutting B. W. Waller with a knife during an altercation on a public street. Dixon appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its jury instructions on self-defense, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the instructions adequately covered the self-defense theory and substantial evidence supported the verdict.
The trial court's instructions were fair, reasonably correct, and adequately covered the substance of Dixon's self-defense theory. The refused requested instructions, while emphasizing the defense theory in more detail, were substantially covered by the charges given. The verdict was supported by ample evidence, and no harmful error appeared.
“If you find that the defendant was lawfully using such sidewalk and that B. W. Waller in an attempt to prevent such use by the defendant, or from any other unlawful purpose or intent, assaulted him, then I charge you that the defendant would in law be reasonably free from fault and that he could lawfully repel force by force and lawfully and properly act in defense of himself throughout any difficulty ensuing, or that was brought about by the wrongful act of the said Waller”
The trial court's jury instruction on self-defense, which the appellate court found fair and adequately covered the defendant's theory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDixon and Waller had an altercation on a public street in which Dixon cut Waller with a knife. Dixon's defense was self-defense, claiming he was using…
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
Whitfield, J.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction of an assault with intent to commit murder upon B. W. Waller. It appears that the person assaulted and the defendant had an altercation on a public street in which the defendant cut the assaulted person with a knife, the defense being the right of self-defense, and the main points in the controversy are the sufficiency of instructions given, and the propriety of refusing requested instructions as to whether the assault charged and admitted was justified, by the assailant being reasonably free from fault and by the danger to the defendant as it appeared to him.
Charges given by the court were fair and reasonably correct. Among them was the following: “If you find that the defendant was lawfully using such sidewalk and that B. W. Waller in an attempt .to prevent such use by the defendant,' or from any other unlawful purpose or intent, assaulted him, then • I charge you that the defendant would in law be reasonably free from fault and that he could lawfully repel force by force and lawfully and properly act in defense of himself throughout any difficulty ensuing, or that was brought about by the wrongful act of the said Waller:”
Requested instructions emphasized more in detail, .the theory of the defense interposed'; but in substance they were sufficiently covered by charges given to fairly present the case to the jury on the different phases of the evidence as adduced under the issues.
Pronounced conflicts in the testimony were settled by the jury. There is ample evidence to support the verdict and harmful error is not made to appear. Sandlin v. State, 76 Fla. 368, 79 South. Rep. 714; Wooten v. State, 24 Fla. 335, 5 South. Rep. 39; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 South. Rep. 174; Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505, 62 South. Rep. 654; Street v. State, 76 Fla. 217, 79 South. Rep. 729; Boyington v. State, 77 Fla. 606, 81 South. Rep. 890.
The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire cause that such errors injuriously affected the substantial rights of the complaining party. Nor should a judgment be reversed or a new trial granted on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to. support the finding or-that upon the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making their finding, Welles v. Bryant, 68 Fla. 113, 66 South. Rep. 562.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor and West,, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1927)…he statute, and such was the tendency and import of the decisions of this Court for many years before the statute was enacted. Butler v. State, decided at the January Term, 1927, of this Court; Ellis v. State, 86 Fla. 56, 97 So. 287; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586; 84 So. 541; Settles v. [*344] State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 So. 287; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 So. 7; McQuagge v. State, 80 Fla. 768, 87 So. 60; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 So. 458; Cooley v. State, 85 Fla. 46, 95 So. 126; Joyner v. State, 85 Fla…
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…substantial evidence to support the finding, or that upon the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making-their finding. Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 South. Rep. 155; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 South. Rep. 541; Sandlin v. State, 76 Fla. 368, 79 South. Rep. 714; Crane v. [*365] State, 76 Fla. 236, 79 South. Rep. 806; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 South. Rep. 983; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7; Shuler v. State, 84 Fl…
-
State v. Wiley Jones, Jr., 377 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1979)…nce in this case leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. The alleged error in the instructions does not weaken the effect of the admitted [*MCCXLIX] testimony and does not reach the legality of the trial itself. Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 So. 541 (1920); Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 So. 652 (1917). Precedent and common sense dictate that we recede from Robles. The primary goal of the judicial system is to seek the truth. Foolish, technical theories should not become barrier…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wooten v. State, 24 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1888)
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)
- Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41 (Fla. 1908)
- Welles v. Bryant, 68 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1914)
- Butts v. Lilly Mobley, 68 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1914)
- Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1913)
- Kirby L. Sandlin v. State, 76 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1918)
- Street v. State, 76 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1918)
- Hutchinson v. Rance, 77 Fla. 606 (Fla. 1919)