MINNIE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Minnie Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial because the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the law of insanity despite evidence being presented on that issue.
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on insanity. When evidence on the insanity issue is submitted, either the trial court must adjudicate the question or, if the defendant elects, the jury must be charged on the law of insanity. The admission of the affidavit implied the court was giving the defendant the benefit of the testimony to avoid a continuance, which required that the truth of the witness's alleged testimony be admitted, thereby warranting an insanity charge.
“The issue of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense must be tried by a jury if the defendant so elects; however, it may be tried with the issue of guilt or innocence as the defendant is not of right entitled to a separate trial on the former issue.”
Establishes the defendant's right to have the jury consider insanity if she elects.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was indicted and tried for murder in the first degree. She pleaded both not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. A non-expert witness…
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 Insanity Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
— Plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted of murder in the first degree without recommenda*815tion to mercy and sentenced to die by electrocution. Writ of error was taken to the judgment.
Error is assigned here on the refusal of the trial court to charge the jury on the law of insanity and on the further fact that insufficient time was given the defendant to prepare for her trial.
The defendant was tried on the following pleas to the indictment.: (1) Not guilty. (2) Not guilty by reason of insanity. On the question of insanity one witness named Ed. Walker who was not an expert was summoned to testify for the defendant. The record discloses that at the time set for the trial this witness was unable on account of illness to attend. The trial court satisfied himself of this fact and admitted in evidence a statement of what Ed. Walker would swear to if he were present. This statement after reviewing defendant’s condition concludes with the announcement “that he has regarded her (defendant) of unsound mind for many years. ’ ’ There was no other testimony on the question of insanity.
The issue of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense must be tried by a jury if the defendant so elects; however, it may be tried with the issue of guilt or innocence as the defendant is not of right entitled to a separate trial on the former issue.. In the absence of a request for a 'jury trial on the issue of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense said issue may be tried and adjudicated by the trial court. Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184, 125 So. R. 345.
After submitting the evidence as here referred to on the issue of insanity the trial court did not adjudicate the question of the defendant’s sanity and refused to charge the jury on this issue. There was no error committed in denying the continuance on the ground of the absence of' a witness but the action of the court in allowing the affi*816davit to be read as evidence, that the witness if present would swear as asserted therein implied that the continuance was refused because it was his purpose to allow the affidavit to be read and in so doing give the defendant the benefit of the testimony. This was error because to avoid a continuance on the ground of the absence of a material witness the truth of what it is alleged that the witness will swear to must be admitted. Newton v. State, 21 Fla. 53. These facts warranted a charge on the issue of insanity.
The evidence in this case is conflicting, requiring the consideration of the character, integrity, and probity of witnesses whose testimony it is necessary to compare and weigh. A well considered brief on the part of the State frankly admits that under the facts as presented a verdict of manslaughter would have been more in keeping with the facts as presented. We hold that the ends of justice require that the cause be reversed and a new trial awarded. Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. R. 528; Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385, 123 So. R. 811.
Reversed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J.,- concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acree v. State, 153 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1943)…ilt or innocence under a plea of not guilty. See Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279; Johnson v. State, 57 Fla. 18, 49 So. 40; Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187; Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. [*569] 1184, 125 So. 345; Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 814, 129 So. 456; Crews v. State, 143 Fla. 263, 186 So. 590. We find in the record considerable testimony on the issue of the sanity of the appellant on July 16, 1942. The appellant conceived the idea of escaping from the hospital; he discussed it with…
-
Wilburn R. Crews v. State, 143 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1940)…priate instructions, along with the issue of guilt or innocence under the plea of not guilty. See Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279; Johnson v. State, 57 Fla. 18, 49 So. 40; Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184, 125 So. 345; Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 814, 129 So. 456. . It appears that the testimony of Doctors Harrell and Wein'reb offered by the defendant was based upon their study and observation, as well as the history of the defendant, and the opinions sought and the assignment of error were not…
-
Jacksonville Traction Co. v. Greene, 113 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1933)…hat- the verdict of the jury approving the single witness is clearly, on the whole record, against the manifest weight of the evidence considered as an entirety. A. C. L. R. R. [*318] Co. v. Alverson, 95 Fla. 73, 116 Sou. Rep. 30; Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 814, 129 Sou. Rep. 456; Wilson v. Maddox, 97 Fla. 489, 121 Sou. Rep. 805. For a detailed statement of the limitations which are recognized on the application of the foregoing rule see the opinion of this Court in Calloway v. State, 112 Fla. 599, 152 Sou…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184 (Fla. 1929)
- Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873 (Fla. 1926)
- Archibald W. Newton v. State, 21 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1884)
- Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1929)