CHESTER SMITH
v.
STATE
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.
Chester Smith was convicted of manslaughter under an information charging murder in the second degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Smith's challenges to the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense and the sufficiency of evidence.
The trial court's jury instructions, though not as complete as they might have been, were not misleading or confusing when considered as part of the whole charge and correctly stated the law. The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of manslaughter, and no reversible error occurred.
“It is well settled that this Court will not reverse a judgment of conviction on the ground that instructions to the jury were incomplete unless the instructions were misleading or confusing, or it be shown that the accused requested further correct instructions' which were refused.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing incomplete jury instructions on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChester Smith was charged with murder in the second degree. At trial, Smith relied on the doctrine of self-defense to justify the homicide. The jury h…
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 Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
We review on writ of error judgment of conviction of the crime of manslaughter had under information charging murder in the second degree.
Plaintiff in error presents four questions for our consideration, as follows:
“1. Did the trial court err in his charge to the jury as to the law of self-defense ?
“2. Did the trial court err in his charge to the jury as to whether the defendant is guilty of manslaughter?
‘‘3. Did the evidence in this case justify a verdict of. manslaughter ?
“4. Should the defendant in this case have been given a new trial ?”
The statement of questions as above quoted in nowise complies with amended Rule 20 and, therefore, we shall not discuss them in detail. See Croft v. State of Fla., 107 Fla. 724, 144 Sou. 663; Callaway v. State, 112 Fla. 599, 152 Sou. 429; Reese, et al., v. Levin, 124 Fla. 96, 168 Sou. 851; St. *757Andrews Bay Lbr. Co. v. Bernard, 102 Fla. 389, 135 Sou. 831.
The charges complained of and referred to in the first and second questions were not as full and complete as they might have been, but, taken in connection with other charges given and considered with them as the whole charge of the court, they were neither misleading or confusing and, as far as they went, they presented correct enunciations of the law. It is well settled that this Court will not reverse a judgment of conviction on the ground that instructions to the jury were incomplete unless the instructions were misleading or confusing, or it be shown that the accused requested further correct instructions' which were refused. See McKenna v. State, 119 Fla. 575, 161 Sou. 561, and cases there" cited.
In the instant case no further or additional instructions were requested.
Questions three and four in effect challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment.
The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of a higher degree of homicide than that of which plaintiff in error was convicted.
Plaintiff in error relied on the doctrine of the right of self-defense to justify the homicide and if the jury had believed his story it should have acquitted him. That he was not acquitted evidences that the jury believed the other witnesses, whose testimony failed to show the basis for the application of the doctrine of self-defense, and did not believe the accused. That question was' one for the jury and was resolved adversely to the accused.
No reversible error is made to appear.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
*758Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Higginbotham v. State, 155 Fla. 274 (Fla. 1944)…truction on the law of an accomplice as given by the trial court. It did not affect the legal or substantial rights of the appellants. It may be considered as surplusage and disregarded. See Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764; Smith v. State, 129 Fla. 755, 176 So. 781; Williams v. State, 46 Fla. 80, 35 So. 335; Section 54.23 Fla. Stats. 1941 (F.S.A.). Counsel for appellants pose here for adjudication the [*278] question viz: Was it reversible error for the State Attorney to remark to the jury that t…
-
Bess v. State, 146 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1941)…trial and endorsed the verdict of the jury by denying new trial. On authority of our opinions and judgments in the cases of Johns v. State, 134 Fla. 358, 183 Sou. 732; Bowman v. State, 114 Fla. 29, 152 Sou. 739; Smith v. State, 129 Fla. [*564] 775, 176 Sou. 781, and Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 468, 194 Sou. 873, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered. Affirmed. Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J., concur.…
-
Lock v. State, 146 Fla. 574 (Fla. 1941)…circuit judge approved the verdict by denying motion for new trial. Under such conditions, we should not disturb the judgment. See Johns v. State, 134 Fla. 358, 183 Sou. 732; Bowman v. State, 114 Fla. 29, 152 Sou. 739; Smith v. State, 129 Fla. 775, 176 Sou. 781, and Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 468, 194 Sou. 873. No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered. Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Adams, J. J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Callaway v. State, 112 Fla. 599 (Fla. 1933)
- McKenna v. State, 119 Fla. 576 (Fla. 1934)
- St. Andrews Bay Lumber Co. v. Bernard, 102 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1931)
- Reese v. Asher Levin, 124 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1936)
- Elbert Croft v. State, 107 Fla. 724 (Fla. 1932)