R. C. KIMBALL, ALIAS PECK KIMBALL,
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.
R.C. Kimball was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that although the trial court's instruction on 'reasonable doubt' was technically erroneous, it was harmless error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the instruction on reasonable doubt was technically erroneous, it constituted harmless error because the evidence so fully sustained the verdict that the instructional error could not reasonably have confused or misled the jury.
“By the term 'reasonable doubt' is not meant a mere possible or speculative doubt, but one conformable to reason; a doubt which would satisfy a reasonable person.”
The trial court's instruction on reasonable doubt that was challenged as erroneous
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKimball was indicted for murder in the first degree and convicted of murder in the second degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The evidence …
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 Harmless Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was indicted for murder in the first degree and convicted of murder in the second degree with sentence to life imprisonment. On writ of error it is argued that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and that the court erred in giving the following charge:
“By the term ‘reasonable doubt’ is not meant a mere possible or speculative doubt, but one conformable to reason; a *850doubt which would satisfy a reasonable person. It is that state of the case which, after the comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say that they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. A doubt which is not suggested by, or does not arise from the evidence is not a reasonable doubt, and should not be considered.”
A charge similar to the one above quoted was given in Bennett v. State, 127 Fla. 759, 173 So. 817, and held to be erroneous. But it was not held to be harmful error so as to of itself cause a reversal of the judgment of conviction. In the Bennett case there were several other errors one of them being a denial, of a right secured by the constitution. Besides this the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not as convincing as in this case. There was additional error and inconclusive evidence in Vaughn v. State, 52 Fla. 122, 41 So. 881, which was decided before the enactment of Section 4499 (2812) C. G. L., the same being Chapter 6223, Acts of 1911, relating to harmless error in court proceedings. For a correct charge on reasonable doubt see Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 11 So. 550, 17 L. R. A. 705; Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127, 44 So. 739, 127 Am. St. Repts., 129; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713.
In this case the evidence so fully sustains the verdict and judgment of conviction that the technical error in the quoted charge could not reasonably have confused or misled the jury and was harmless.
A discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose since it is clearly ample to sustain the verdict and the judgment of conviction rendered thereon.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman, and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simmons v. State, 156 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1945)…t reversible error; Vasque v. State, 54 Fla. 127, 44 So. 739, where the words “or the lack of evidence” was not’ground for reversal. The rule was reaffirmed by this Court in Bennet v. State, 127 Fla. 759, 173 So. 817; reaffirmed in Kimball v. State, 134 Fla. 849, 184 So. 847. , In State v. Anderson, 209 Iowa 510, 228 N.W. 353, 67 A.L.R. 1366, the cited cases hold that two states — Mississippi and Missouri — hold to the minority rule viz: that in a definition of reasonable doubt, omitting “or the lack of ev…
Authorities Cited
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1892)
- Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1907)
- Bennett v. State, 127 Fla. 759 (Fla. 1937)
- Vaughn v. State, 52 Fla. 122 (Fla. 1906)