COLSON
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.
Colson was convicted of resisting a sheriff in the performance of his lawful duty under Florida law. On appeal, he argued he was too intoxicated to form the required intent of acting 'knowingly and willfully.' The court affirmed, holding that the jury's finding that he was capable of forming the necessary intent was supported by competent evidence and within the jury's fact-finding authority.
The court held that the jury's finding that the defendant was capable of forming the necessary intent of acting 'knowingly and willfully' was supported by competent evidence and properly submitted to the jury. The conviction was affirmed because the defendant's intoxication did not overcome the jury's verdict.
“if one is so drunk as to be incapable of forming an intent, no such intent can exist nor can any offense of which it is a necessary element be committed”
Establishes the legal rule from Garner v. State regarding intoxication as a defense to crimes requiring specific intent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was arrested and charged with resisting the sheriff of Gilchrist County. Colson admitted to resisting the sheriff but claimed he was extreme…
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 Specific Intent Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellant was tried and convicted because he did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully resist, obstruct and oppose the sheriff of Gilchrist County in the exercise of his lawful duty contrary to F.S. Section 843.01, F.S.A. A motion for new trial was overruled and the defendant appealed.
Several questions are urged for reversal but the gist of appellant’s grievance is that he brought himself within but was denied benefit of the rule announced in Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835, and similar cases where he approved the doctrine that if one is so drunk as to be incapable of forming an intent, no such intent can exist nor can any offense of which it is a necessary element be committed.
Appellant does not deny resisting the sheriff but he says he was so drunk at the time he did not know what he was doing and, being so, the necessary element of “knowingly and willfully” resisting the sheriff in the performance of his duty was not present. He offers no criterion or pattern by which to determine how drunk he would have to be to incapacitate him to form an intent. The jury and the trial court found him able to form one and we find no error in their finding. Appellant admits in his brief that if there was competent evidence to prove that resistance to the sheriff was “knowingly and willfully” done, the court was correct in approving the conviction.
We do not indulge meticulous discussion of the evidence but casual inspection of it discloses that the sheriff exercised an unusually tolerant attitude in handling defendant, more in fact than reason and discretion required. He was no doubt “well soused” but it is an old saw that “some are keener drunk than others are sober.” Whether or not defendant had enough left to know what he was doing was a question for the jury. At any rate, they resolved it against him on good reasoning. The sheriff has a duty to protect the safety of the sober as well as those who get drunk, forget their responsibility to the public, and make themselves a menace to public safety. There is no better forum than a jury to determine which of these categories a man allies himself with. The record pictures appellant as a common drunk but even so it requires more than his admission that he passed out and was not responsible, to overcome the finding of the trial court and the jury.
The judgment appealed from is without error and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frey v. State, 708 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1998)…So. 2d at 1264 (“Florida courts have rejected the voluntary intoxication defense in the following cases involving general intent crimes.... Williams v. State, 250 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (violence while resisting arrest)...Cf. Colson v. State, 73 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1954) (the jury did not err in rejecting the claim that the defendant was too drunk to "resist ... the sheriff”). We disapprove Gonzales v. State, 488 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), wherein the court ruled that "resisting an arrest with violen…1 / 2
-
Farrior v. State, 76 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1954)…that the legislature specifically omitted from Section 920.02(3) the requirement of Section 4498, supra, then applicable in civil cases, that the order for extension of time be made “within such four days”. In the case of Colson v. State, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 862, this Court affirmed the conviction but reviewed the evidence, the sufficiency of which was challenged by defendant’s motion for new trial. An examination of the original file in this case shows that the motion for new trial was filed October 6, 195…
-
Ceballos v. State, 441 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Colson v. State, 73 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1954); Frazee v. State, 320 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1891)