FORREST NORRIS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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 conviction for "aggravated manslaughter" because the crime did not exist in Florida law and the jury's verdict was thus unclear. The court also noted potential issues with self-defense evidence, a continuance motion, and a child witness but found no reversible error on those points individually.
The court held that the jury's verdict of "aggravated manslaughter" was reversible error because the crime does not exist in Florida law, making the verdict unintelligible. While other issues were raised, they did not individually constitute reversible error.
“There is no such crime as “aggravated manslaughter” known to our law and we have no way of knowing just what was in the mind of the jury, or what was meant by that verdict.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversal: the non-existence of the crime for which the defendant was convicted.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceForrest Norris was indicted for first-degree murder and convicted of "aggravated manslaughter" by a jury, despite the defense of self-defense and the …
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 Witness Qualification cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case we are unable to point with certainty to any one occurrence, ruling, or Act which would constitute, or in our opinion does constitute, reversible error. Two brothers were indicted for murder in the first degree; one, the plaintiff in error here, as principal in the first degree, and the other as principal in the second degree. The one indicted as principal in the second degree was acquitted. *192-The plaintiff in error here was adjudged guilty of manslaughter on a verdict which read:
" “We, the jury, find the defendant Forrest Norris guilty of aggravated manslaughter.”
There is no such crime as “aggravated manslaughter” known to our law and we have no way of knowing just what was in the mind of the jury, or what was meant by that verdict.
The defense interposed was' that of self defense. It appears to us that there was some substantial evidence supporting the contention of the defendant. We would not, however, reverse the judgment for a new trial on this point alone.
There was a motion for continuance on account of the absence of a witness which appeared to contain much merit, though it did not entirely meet the requirements' of the rule in such cases and.we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the motion. A young girl was allowed to testify, over the objection of the defendant, who had not been shown to clearly realize the obligation of an oath, nor to appreciate the solemnity thereof, nor to be acquainted with the punishment' which might follow false swearing. The record, however, discloses no effort .on the part of counsel for defendant to propound questions in addition to those propounded to her by the court to ascertain •whether or not she was qualified as a witness and, under the state of the record, no reversible error occurred in allowing her to testify.
When the whole record is' considered, however, we have an abiding conviction that justice demands a reversal of the judgment for a new trial and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., .concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Custer v. State, 159 Fla. 574 (Fla. 1947)…s remaining there. The law only contemplates that the box should be emptied of all names when the new list for the succeeding year is put into the box in January. See Lake v. State, supra.” (Emphasis supplied). In Livingston v. State, 108 Fla. 193, 145 So. 761, we said: “The 11th and 12th grounds of the motion for a new trial are the Court erred in overruling defendant’s motions to quash the panel of jurors respectively. “The first ground of both motions are the same and read as follows: “ ‘That the ve…1 / 3
-
Ex Parte: Archibald Livingston, 116 Fla. 640 (Fla. 1934)…e judgment resulted in a reversal with directions to “grant a new trial, and have such other proceedings as may be according to law.” The third count of the indictment is' set out in full in the reported case. See Livingston v. State, 108 Fla. 193, 145 Sou. Rep. 761. A brief history of the case, in so far as the procedure is material to the consideration of the questions presented, is as' follows: Upon arraignment the defendant pleaded in abatement to the indictment. The trial court proceeded to try the pleas…
-
Marks v. State, 115 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1934)…nd denied where there has been no demurrer interposed thereto questioning its legal sufficiency as a matter of law, even though the plea may in law be insufficient to withstand a demurrer properly interposed. See Livingston v. State, 108 Fla. 193, 145 Sou. Rep. 761 (4th. headnote). In the present case the plea in abatement should, in addition to the allegations ■ set forth therein, have embraced further allegations directly attacking the authenticity of the jurat which was appended to the information. Such j…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence