TIGE SCHOLL, 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.
Tige Scholl was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Scholl's challenge based on the sufficiency of evidence and self-defense claims.
The conviction is affirmed. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's finding against the claim of self-defense, and where such evidence supports the finding, a verdict of conviction will not be disturbed.
“There must be reasonable grounds to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.”
Establishes the foundational requirement for justifiable homicide by self-defense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTige Scholl was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. The case involved a self-defense claim. The evidence, though c…
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 Fact-Finding cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. The only question presented by the assignments of error as argued by counsel for plaintiff in error' challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. .The judgment should be affirmed on authority of the opinion in the case of the State v. Lindsey, 88 Fla. 135, 101 Sou. 273, in which the Court say:
“The law of justifiable homicide by self-defense has many times been set forth in decisions of this Court. There must be reasonable grounds to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished. ‘Imminent means near at hand, mediate rather than immediate, close rather than touching.’ ”
The one interposing the defense must not have wrongfully occasioned the necessity; he must have used all reasonable means in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger and to avert the necessity of taking human life; the circumstances must be such as to induce a reasonably cautions and prudent man to believe that the danger was actual and the necessity real in order that the slayer may -be justified in acting upon his own belief to that effect. See Land v. State, 44 Fla. 105, 32 South. Rep. 896; Furlow v. State, 72 Fla. 464, 73 South. Rep. 362; Yates v. State, 26 Fla. 484, 7 South. Rep. 880; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. Rep. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 South. Rep. 535; Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 43 South. Rep. 593; Owens v. State, 64 Fla. 383, 60 South. Rep. 340; Doke v. State, 71 Fla. 633, 71 South. Rep. 917.”
And the opinion in the case of Sanford v. State, 90 Fla. 337, 106 Sou. 406, in which the Court say:
“The question of self-defense is one of fact, and where the evidence, though conflicting, is sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury against a claim of self-defense, a verdict of conviction, based upon such finding, will not be disturbed, where the crime charged is proved and it does not appear that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence.”
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Dias v. State, 812 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…s a reasonable belief that such force is necessary.” Butler v. State, 493 So. 2d 451, 453 (Fla.1986) (emphasis added). The question of self-defense is one of fact, and is one for the jury to decide where the facts are disputed. See Scholl v. State, 94 Fla. 1138, 115 So. 43, 44 (1927); Reimel v. State, 532 So. 2d 16, 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Payton v. State, 200 So. 2d 255, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). In discussing the question of the reasonableness of the force used, the court in Reimel stated: A jury question…
-
Rasley v. State, 878 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…efense is interposed, is required to heed the rules that “[t]he question of self defense is one of fact, and is one for the jury to decide where the facts are disputed.” Dias v. State, 812 So. 2d 487, 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Scholl v. State, 94 Fla. 1138, 115 So. 43, 44 (1927)). “A motion for [*477] judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless ‘the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the opposite party can be sustained under the law.’ ” See Hernand…
-
Godinez v. State, 480 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Blount v. State, 67 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1953); Gardner v. State, 54 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1951); Scholl v. State, 94 Fla. 1138, 115 So. 43 (1927); Delagado v. State, 361 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); McLaughlin v. State, 286 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).…
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 (13 total)
- Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1924)
- Carmine Charles Robert Falco v. State, 407 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1981)
- Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1891)
- Frand Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1920)
- Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105 (Fla. 1902)
- Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1907)
- In re the Proceedings Against Percy S. Hayes & Bryan Mack for Contempt of Court, 72 Fla. 558 (Fla. 1916)
- Yates v. State, 26 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1890)
- Sanford v. State, 90 Fla. 337 (Fla. 1925)
- Pledger Bros. v. The W. Ry. of Ala., 90 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1925)