WILLIE MAE ANDERSON, 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.
Trial court erred by excluding defendant's character evidence about the deceased while simultaneously instructing the jury on justifiable homicide, requiring reversal and new trial.
A trial court commits reversible error by prohibiting a defendant from presenting witness testimony about the violent character and reputation of the deceased while instructing the jury that it may consider such character evidence in evaluating a justifiable homicide defense.
[1] In a justifiable homicide case, a defendant has the right to present witness testimony regarding the violent character and reputation of the deceased, and a trial court c…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It was error for the trial judge to on the one hand disallow the appellant from presenting her witnesses' testimony about the character and propensities of the deceased and then charge the jury that it may consider evidence of the character of the deceased.”
Court explaining the fundamental inconsistency in the trial court's rulings regarding character evidence and jury instructions.
Willie Mae Anderson was indicted for first-degree murder and convicted of second-degree murder after a jury trial. She testified that she acted in sel…
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 Justifiable Homicide cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant was indicted for murder in the First Degree and convicted of murder in the Second Degree after a jury trial. As tenuous as it might have been the appellant had a defense of justifiable homicide to present to the jury. She testified as to her acting in self defense, which, if sufficiently established, can permit the jury to acquit under the definition of justifiable homicide. After she testified the court ruled she could not present her witnesses as to the violent character and reputation of the deceased and she would not be permitted to have the jury charged on the law of justifiable homicide. It is noted, however, the court did charge the jury on justifiable homicide.1 It was error for the trial judge to on the one hand disallow the appellant from presenting her witnesses’ testimony about the character and propensities of the deceased and then charge the jury that it may consider evidence of the character of the deceased. The error was not the giving of the charge but the disallowing of the testimony. The judgment and sentence are reversed and the matter remanded for new trial. Palm v. State, 135 Fla. 258, 184 So. 881 (1938); Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835 (1891); Banks v. State, 351 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Coker v. State, 212 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1 DCA 1968); Cole v. State, 193 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1 DCA 1966).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, J., and BLACK, SUSAN H., Associate Judge, concur. . It is further noted neither the appellant’s nor the appellee’s brief indicate appellate counsel were aware of this fact. One of the principal errors alleged was the failure to give that instruction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quintana v. State, 452 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…fic acts of violence, if such evidence will explain or otherwise give “meaning, significance, or point to, the conduct of the deceased at the time of the killing.” Hunter v. State, 378 So. 2d 845, 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also Anderson v. State, 362 So. 2d 361 (F.la. 4th DCA 1978). As this court has previously stated, where there is even the “slightest evidence" of an overt act by the victim “which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing his life or sustai…
-
Hager v. State, 439 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…idence of the victim’s violent character, he must lay an adequate predicate, i.e., showing that the circumstances of the homicide are such that they would tend to support a case of self defense. An interesting analogy is found in Anderson v. State, 362 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), wherein this court said: Appellant was indicted for murder in the First Degree and convicted of murder in the Second Degree after a jury trial. As tenuous as it might have been the appellant had a defense of justifiable homicid…
-
Hunter v. State, 378 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…e of the victim’s character should have been introduced, in part because appellant did claim self-defense. That the self-defense claim may have been tenuous should not have barred introduction of character and reputation evidence. Anderson v. State, 362 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Evidence of deceased’s violent and dangerous character is admissible if “it explains, or will give meaning, significance, or point to, the conduct of the deceased at the time of the killing . . . .” Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113,…
Authorities Cited
- Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1891)
- Palm v. State, 135 Fla. 258 (Fla. 1938)
- Willie Banks v. State, 351 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Cole v. State, 193 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Isiah Coker v. State, 212 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)