LAURA BROWN, 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 reversed a manslaughter conviction, holding that the jury instructions on self-defense were inadequate given the circumstances of the shooting, which resulted in the unintended death of a bystander.
No, the jury instructions were not sufficient. The court held that if the killing of the intended target would have been justifiable homicide under self-defense, then the unintended killing of a bystander by a stray shot fired in the proper exercise of self-defense is also justifiable.
“If the killing of the party intended to be killed would, under all the circumstances, have been excusable or justifiable homicide upon the theory of self-defense, then the unintended killing of a bystander, by a random shot fired in the proper and prudent exercise of such self-defense is also excusable or justifiable.”
Establishes the legal principle for unintended bystander deaths during justifiable self-defense.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaura Brown was indicted for first-degree murder but convicted of manslaughter. She claimed self-defense against her brother-in-law, who was threateni…
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 Provocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
On an indictment for murder in the first degree by shooting, Laura Brown was convicted of manslaughter and took a writ of ex’ror. Self-defense was interposed as a defence to the charge; and oh the evidence adduced considered in the light of the charges on the law of self-defense a new trial should be granted.
It does not clearly appear that the accused did “by her wrongful act or conduct provoke or bring about the diffi culty” that immediately precipitated tlm fatal shooting; and the evidence is not conclusive that she did not have rea'son to fear bodily harm from the man, her brother-in-law, who was threatening her whom she shot at. as she asserts in self-defense to keep him from cutting her, though her sister, a bystander was in fact shot and killed.. The man did in fact seriously cut the accused'immediately upon the firing of the shot by her that was intended for him but which killed her sister, who was standing by her husband, the brother-in-law of the accused who was threatening her. If the killing of the party intended to be killed would, under all the circumstances, have been excusable or justifiable homicide upon the theory of self-defense, then the unintended killing of a bystander, by a random shot fired in the proper and prudent exercise of such self-defense is also excusable or justifiable. Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. Rep. 837.
Reversed for a new trial.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, J., concur. Ellis and West, J. J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. City of Jacksonville, 133 So. 114 (Fla. 1931)…or apply the policy as expressed by the legislature. This court has repeatedly approved such procedure. Theisen vs. McDavid 34 Fla. 440, 16 So. 321; State vs. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969; Taylor vs. Roberts 84 Fla. 654, 94 So. 874; 6 R.C.L. 178. It is next contended that Ordinance S-35 is bad and ineffective for the following reasons: (1) It is not made to appear that the zoning map accompanying it was prepared by the commission and that the proceedings of the commission are…
-
City of Miami Beach v. The Tex. Co., 141 Fla. 616 (Fla. 1940)…e think the City Council of the City of Miami Beach has and possesses ample charter power to enact Ordinance No. 446. See State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Water Works Co., 56 Fla. 858, 47 So. 358, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 183; Taylor v. Roberts, 84 Fla. 654, 94 So. 874; Citizens Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 98 Fla. 933, 124 So. 722; State ex rel. Luke v. City of Tallahassee, 100 Fla. 1529, 131 So. 386; Ex Parte Theisen, 30 Fla. 529, 11 So. 901; Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 So. 922, Ann. Cas. 1916D 208; Ex Parte…1 / 2
-
State v. McCarthy, 126 Fla. 433 (Fla. 1936)…nterest of the public good. Florida Motor Lines v. Ward, 102 Fla. 1105, 137 So. 167; 1 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law, 17; McCaffery v. Smith, 41 Hun. (N. Y.) 117; Welsh v. Morristown, 98 N. J. Law, 121 Atl. 699; Taylor v. Roberts, 84 Fla. 654, 94 So. 874; State v. York, 90 Fla. 625, 106 So. 420; State v. Carter, 205 N. C. 761, 172 S. E. 415. In Lutterloh v. Mayor, etc., of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 308, it was observed that: ‘‘The right of occupancy of the street by the public is a mere easement or right…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1891)