WILLIAMS
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.
Patrick Henry Williams appealed his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's refusal to sustain his objection to inflammatory remarks by the State Attorney during closing argument suggesting that an insanity acquittal would lead to release and further homicides. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Attorney General that reversible error occurred and reversed for a new trial.
The court held that reversible error was committed by the trial court's failure to sustain the defendant's objection to the State Attorney's improper remarks in closing argument, and the judgment was set aside for a new trial.
“after a thorough and exhaustive study of the record * * [he agrees] that reversible error was committed below and that the cause should be reversed for a new trial”
The Attorney General's concession that reversible error occurred, which the Florida Supreme Court adopted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick Henry Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. He entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury convicted 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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
Patrick Henry Williams, the defendant below, was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree. Upon arraignment he entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree and recommended him to the mercy of the court. The trial court rendered judgment upon the verdict and the defendant appealed; assigning as one of the grounds of error the trial court’s refusal to sustain the defendant’s objection to certain remarks made by the State Attorney in his closing argument to the effect that if the jury should find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity he would be sent to the insane asylum and soon after being confined there would be released to commit another homicide.
On this appeal the Attorney General states in his brief that “after a thorough and exhaustive study of the record * * [he agrees] that reversible error was committed below and that the cause should be reversed for a new trial.”. He made the same concession at the bar of this court during the course of the oral argument on the appeal.
We agree with the position taken by the Attorney General that reversible error was committed and that the judgment should-be set aside and a new trial awarded. Com pare Register v. State, 121 Fla. 9, 163 So. 219.
It is so ordered,
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Teffeteller v. State, 439 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1983)…is time two of the witnesses who testified against him, and maybe others. There is no place in our system of jurisprudence for this argument. See Grant v. State, 194 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1959); Williams v. State, 68 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1953); Stewart v. State, 51 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1951); Sims v. State, 371 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).2 We thus reverse the sentence of death for first-degree murder and remand back to the trial court to hold a new sentencing trial before a jury.…
-
Nowitzke v. State, 572 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1990)…cannot suggest to the jury that an acquittal would result in the defendant’s release from an asylum in just a few months because the disposition of an insane defendant is neither the concern nor the responsibility of the jury. See Williams v. State, 68 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1953) (reversible error for prosecution to tell jurors that if they should find defendant not guilty by reason of insanity he would be sent to an asylum and soon be released); see also Johnson v. State, 408 So. 2d 813, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (s…
-
Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 2010)…that the trial judge relied upon the erroneous evidence. Id. In the instant case, the trial judge explained to the defendants that evidence of two of the four robberies referred to during opening statements was inadmissible under Williams v. State, 68 So. 2d 583 (Fla.195[3]), and then she gave the defendants the option of moving for mistrial and having the case heard by a jury or proceeding with her sitting as the trier of fact. The defendants chose to rely on the judge’s ability to disregard the inadmissib…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Register v. State, 121 Fla. 9 (Fla. 1935)