J. F. PREVATT, 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.
J. F. Prevatt was indicted for first-degree murder but convicted of third-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court properly admitted character witnesses, correctly charged the jury on the defendant's right to testify, and properly instructed on murder degrees.
The court held that: (1) no error occurred in sustaining objections where proper predicate had not been laid for character questions; (2) the jury charge regarding the defendant's right to testify was proper and not prejudicial; and (3) it is not error to give the statutory definition of third-degree murder in a first-degree murder trial because all degrees of unlawful homicide are included in such an indictment.
“In a trial on an indictment for murder in the first degree, it is not error to give the statutory definition of murder in the third degree, since all degrees of unlawful homicide are included in an indictment for murder in the first degree”
Establishes the core holding that lesser murder charges may be submitted to a jury in a first-degree murder trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrevatt was indicted for first-degree murder. At trial, defense witnesses testified about Prevatt's general reputation as a peaceable, law-abiding cit…
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 Third Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
On an indictment for murder in the first degree J. F. Prevatt was convicted of murder in the third degree and took writ of error. At the trial several witnesses for the defendant testified that they knew the general reputation of the defendant in the community where he resides being a peaceable and law abiding citizen and for truth and veracity, and that it was good. Other witnesses for the defendant testified that they had known the defendant for several years. They were not asked if they knew the general reputation of the defendant as a law abiding truthful-citizen, but were asked: “Q. Have you heard anything wrong said of him during that time, as a peaceable and law abiding citizen and for truth and veracity 1”; or “ Q. Have you ever heard anything said against his reputation in the community?” Objections on the ground that a proper predicate for the question had not been laid, were sustained. A proper predicate not having been laid, there was no eror in these rulings and the prinicples announced in Hinson v. State, 59 Fla. 20, 62 South. Rep. 194, were not violated.
The Court charged the jury that “under the laws of this State the defendant has the right to take the stand and testify in his own behalf, and such testimony goes to you the same as the testimony of any other witness in the case, to be weighed and considered according to the same rules. ’?
This charge was not improper since the statute authorized the defendant at his option to become a witness in his own behalf; and the charge was not so worded as to prejudice the defendant before the jury.
In a trial on an indictment for murder in the first degree, it is not error to give the statutory definition of murder in the third degree, since all degrees of unlawful homicide are included in an indictment for murder in the first degree, and under the statute a verdict-of murder in the third degree may be sustained if the evidence would sustain a verdict of murder in the first or second degree, even though the evidence does not show 'murder in the third degree as defined by the statute.
It is not essential to the validity of a judgment of con viction in felony cases, tbat tbe record should show affirmatively that the defendant was personally present at the hearing of and the ruling upon his motion for a new trial. Williams vs. State, 42 Fla. 210, 27 South. Rep. 869.
There is evidence to sustain a verdict of murder in the second degree, therefore, under the statute, the verdict of murder in the third degree will not be disturbed.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buford v. State, 403 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1981)…evidence of his non-violent character, but this is done through his own witnesses. In any event, he could only have elicited evidence of his general reputation in the community, not specific instances of non-violence. Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284, 89 So. 807 (1921); Reddick v. State, 25 Fla. 112, 5 So. 704 (1889). Defendant next contends that section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1977), is unconstitutional because it restricts the mitigating circumstances to be considered to those enumerated in the statut…
-
Jimenez v. State, 158 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1947)…support the conviction does not render it insufficient to do so and the prisoner is in nowise hurt by that excess of its probative force which the jury has ignored.” See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149, 113 So. 726, Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284, 89 So. 807, Bowden v. State, 152 Fla. 715, 12 So. (2nd), 887, and 42 Corpus Juris Secundum 1327, Indictments and Informations, Sec. 299: “The general rule is that accused may be convicted of a lesser degree of an offense, or a lesser included offense, even tho…
-
Fogler v. State, 96 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1928)…40 N. Y. 496; State v. Wisnewski, 13 N. D. 648, and the many cases cited in the note thereto reported in 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas., 907; 16 C. J. 1021. The charge here considered is more favorable to the accused than that approved in Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284, 89 So. R. 807. See also the discussion in O’Steen v. State, 111 So. R. 725; and Hampton v. State, 50 Fla. 55; 39 So. R. 421. The second and fourth assignments question the form of the verdict, which was as follows: “July 23-1926. We the jury find…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hinson v. State, 59 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1910)
- Williams v. State, 42 Fla. 210 (Fla. 1900)