NOAH CRAWFORD, 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.
Noah Crawford was convicted of wantonly and maliciously shooting into an occupied dwelling house. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Crawford's arguments that the verdict was unsupported by evidence and that the trial court erred in refusing a requested jury instruction.
The verdict was supported by ample evidence, and the refusal of the requested jury instruction was not error because the trial court's charge is not contained in the record, making it impossible to review whether the given instruction properly addressed the law of the case.
“One of the individuals constituting the party of four that did the shooting, who was present when it was done, as a witness on behalf of the State detailed what occurred. He testified that the party was in the car of the defendant, that the expedition and the taking of the guns used were the defendant's suggestions, and that while the defendant himself did not fire either of the guns, they were fired by others of the party under his direction.”
Establishes the evidence supporting Crawford's guilt, including his direction of the shooting even though others physically fired the guns.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrawford and three others drove in Crawford's car to shoot at a dwelling house. One of the shooting party testified that Crawford suggested the expedi…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
The plaintiff in error was charged in an information filed by the County Solicitor in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County with the crime of wantonly and maliciously shooting at and into a certain dwelling house in Duval County, then and there being occupied and used as a dwelling house by the owner. The trial of the case resulted in a verdict of guilty as charged. To review the judgment writ of error was taken from this court.
Of the many rulings assigned as error two only are argued in the brief filed in this court on behalf of plaintiff in error. Assignments not argued are regarded as abandoned and will not be considered. Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153, 95 South. Rep. 573; Bass v. State, 58 Fla. 1, 50 South. Rep. 531; Hoodless v. State, 46 Fla. 213, 35 South. Rep. 656.
The principal contention is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. No benefit would be derived from a detailed recital of the evidence offered on behalf of the State in support of the charge. One of the individuals constituting the party of four that did the shooting, who was present when it was done, as a witness on behalf of the State detailed what occurred. He testified that the party was in the car of the defendant, that the expedition and the taking of the guns used were the defendant’s suggestions, - and that while the defendant himself did not fire either of the guns, they were fired by others of the party under his direction. Occupants of the dwelling recognized defendant’s voice calling members of .the family before the shooting, which occurred in the night time. There was strong corroborative evidence from other witnesses. The defendant admitted his presence at the scene of the shooting. That the house was shot into and that it was a dwelling house and so occupied at the time, were proved. The proof is ample to sustain the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that it was induced by any other influence than a proper consideration of the evidence by the jury. Studstill v. State, 83 Fla. 623, 92 South. Rep. 151; Moore v. State, 83 Fla. 270, 91 South. Rep. 180; Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 South. Rep. 802; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685.
The other assignment argued in the brief is the refusal of the trial court to give, on behalf of the defendant, a requested instruction to the jury. Without respect to whether the' requested charge correctly stated principles of law applicable to the facts in proof, the question cannot be considered because the charge given by the court is not contained in the record. Presumably the charge given correctly instructed the jury upon the law of the case. If so, the refusal to give the requested instruction was not error. It is incumbent upon one seeking reversal in an appellate court of a judgment against him to make the error of the trial court to appear. This is not done by showing refusal to give a requested appropriate charge where instructions given are not contained in the record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur. Terrell, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1927)…, 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. 384, 96 So. 155; Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 93 So. 672; Crawford v. State, 86 Fla. 94, 97 So. 288; Jacques v. State, 86 Fla. 137, 97 So. 380; White v. State, 84 Fla. 677, 95 So. 113; Holmberg v. Hardee, 90 Fla. 787, 108 So. 213; Stephens v. State, (Fla.) 109 So. 303; Herd v. Maloney, (Fla.) 110 So. 349; O’Steen v. State, (Fla.) 111 S…
-
White v. Crandall, 105 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1931)…27; Porter v. Parslow, 39 Fla. 50, 21 South. Rep. 574; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. V. Nims, 61 Fla. 420, 54 South. Rep. 779; Jordan v. Sayre, 24 Fla. 1, 3 South. Rep. 329.; McCook v. Caruthers, 87 Fla. 238, 99 [*88] South. Rep. 559; Crawford v. State, 86 Fla. 94, 97 South. Rep. 288. The above statement is made, seemingly unnecessary though it may be, because in the brief filed by attorneys for defendant it is stated that this Court in this case is confronted “with one of the most glaring cases of oppressio…
-
Me. Ins. Co. v. Raser, 240 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…tions are not made a part of the record on appeal. We are therefore unable to determine if the court committed reversible error in refusing to give the requested instructions. Cf. Morgan v. Marshall, 78 Fla. 59, 82 So. 609 (1919); Crawford v. State, 86 Fla. 94, 97 So. 288 (1923). The eighth point directed to the amount of the attorney’s fee allowed pursuant to § 627.0127, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., is also without merit. The trial judge held an evidentiary hearing and heard the testimony of the expert witnesses…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1903)
- City of Miami v. Firth, 85 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1923)
- Bass v. State, 58 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1909)
- Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1923)
- Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1920)
- Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1921)
- Moore v. State, 83 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1922)
- Donovan Studstill and John Lee Studstill v. State, 83 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1922)
- Smith v. Blanche D. Rentz, 82 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1921)
- Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1921)