W. F. MORRIS, 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.
W. F. Morris was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient and rejecting Morris's arguments that the trial court erred in jury instructions regarding intent.
The conviction was affirmed. The trial court properly charged on assault with intent to commit murder or manslaughter as supported by the evidence. It was not reversible error to fail to charge on aggravated assault when that charge was not made. The jury instruction on intent, while potentially erroneous in its statement of evidentiary principles, could not have prejudiced the defendant given the evidence and other charges.
“A man is presumed in law to intend the probable and natural consequences of his own unlawful act; the intent must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, but direct and positive testimony is not necessary to prove the intent—it may be inferred from the facts and circumstances shown by all the evidence.”
The trial court's instruction on how intent may be proven and inferred, addressing the critical element of intent in the assault charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorris was charged with assault with a premeditated design and intent to unlawfully kill and murder. The evidence showed an assault with intent to com…
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 Inference Of Intent From Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Writ of error was taken'to a judgment of conviction rendered upon a verdict of “guilty of assault with intent to commit manslaughter.” The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict. The sentence is two years’ imprisonment in the State penitentiary. See Sections 7141, 7165, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927. The information charges an assault “with a-premeditated design and intent * * * unlawfully to kill and murder, ’ ’ and the evidence relates to an assault with intent to commit a homicide and not to an intent to commit any other felony, therefore the charges properly were upon the law as to assault with intent to commit murder or manslaughter, and not with intent to commit any other felony. Aggravated assault was not charged and the evidence showed a wounding as well as facts essential to the verdict found, therefore it was not reversible error to fail to charge on aggravated assault. Where the verdict is for a lesser offense it is not necessary to consider alleged errors in charges relating to a higher offense when the charges complained of could not have contributed to the conviction. Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. R. 161. Likewise where the charge complained of related to a lesser offense than that found in the verdict. Marlow v. State, 49 Fla. 7, 38 So. R. 653.
The following charge was given by the court:
“As I have stated, gentlemen, the gist of the offenses that I have just explained to you is the intent of the accused at the time of the alleged assault. You should always keep that in mind in your deliberations when you retire. However, the mere fact that death did not ensue, of the mere statement of the defendant that he did not intend to kill the prosecuting witness, would not justify the jury in themselves alone, in finding that the defendant did not intend to kill the prosecuting witness. A man is presumed in law to intend the probable and natural consequences of his own unlawful act; the intent must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, but direct and positive testimony is not neccessary to prove the intent—it may be inferred from the facts and circumstances shown by all the evidence.”
While under the statute the court should charge upon the law of the ease only, Sections 4363, 8397, Comp. Gen Laws 1927, the portion of the above charge relating to the effect of items of evidence, if erroneous, could not reasonably have injured the defendant in view of the evidence and of other charges given by the court.
No material or prejudicial error is made to appear. Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. State, 132 So. 684 (Fla. 1931)…dict is for a lesser offense it is not necessary to consider alleged errors in charges relating to a higher offense when the charge complained of could not have contributed to the conviction. Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. 161; Morris v. State, 98 Fla. 609, 123 So. 912. The charges upon culpable negligence could hardly have contributed to the conviction of aggravated assault in this case. The question raised by the motion for new trial as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of a…
Authorities Cited
- Burton Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99 (Fla. 1904)
- Marlow v. State, 49 Fla. 7 (Fla. 1905)