LULA PINKNEY, 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 manslaughter conviction, holding that the trial court's jury instructions, when considered as a whole, adequately covered the law, and that sufficient evidence supported the verdict.
No, the trial court did not err. The jury instructions, taken together, fairly covered the relevant legal principles, and the evidence was ample to sustain the verdict.
“Considering the entire charge, including the special charges given at the request of plaintiff in error, it fairly covers the law on the points upon which charges were requested, and this court in many cases has held that it is not error for the trial court to refuse to give charges already substantially given.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for not finding error in the refusal of certain jury charges.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was indicted for first-degree murder but convicted of manslaughter. The appeal challenged the trial court's rulings on jury ins…
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
West, J.
Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter. Writ of error was taken from this court.
The errors assigned bring úp for review rulings of the trial court refusing to give requested charges, giving certain charges, and denying a motion for new trial upon the ground that the evidence does not support the verdict.
The charges requested generally were upon the question of self defense. Some were given in connection with the general charge. Others were refused. One upon the question of the burden of proof and one upon the question of presumption of innocence were refused.
A discussion of the charges given or refused upon these familiar principles would be of no benefit. Considering the entire charge, including the special charges given at the request of plaintiff in error, it fairly covers the law on the points upon which charges were requested, and this court in many cases has held that it is not error for the trial court to refuse to give charges 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lindberg v. State, 134 Fla. 786 (Fla. 1938)…k that the rule that requested instructions are properly refused when such principles contained in said requested instructions have been fully covered by other instructions or charges given in the case. Dixon v. State, 16 Fla. 636; Pinkney v. State, 83 Fla. 550, 92 Sou. 160; Roberts v. State, 90 Fla. 779, 107 Sou. 204; Bass v. State, 58 Fla. 1, 50 Sou. 531; Perry v. State, 103 Fla. 580, 137 Sou. 789. One of the charges requested was: “You are charged that under the law the word ‘imminent’ as used in the…
-
Penington v. State, 91 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1926)…charge of the Court, including special charges given at the request of defendant, it fairly covers the law of the ease it is not error for the trial Court to refuse to give other requested charges already substantially given. ’ ’ Pinkney v. State, 83 Fla. 550, 92 So. 160. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. [*454] Brown, C. J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur; Buford, J., disqualified.…
Authorities Cited
- Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)
- Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1919)
- Dunk Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1918)
- Long v. State, 78 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1919)
- Russell v. State, 78 Fla. 223 (Fla. 1919)
- Howard v. State, 78 Fla. 413 (Fla. 1919)