Blocker v. State

• Decision Date: 14 February 1924
• Citation: 87 Fla. 128,99 So. 250
• Parties: BLOCKER v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

99 So. 250

87 Fla. 128

BLOCKER v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

February 14, 1924

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; C. L. Wilson, Judge.

L. S Blocker was convicted of murder in the first degree, and be brings error.

Reversed.

(Syallbus by the Court.)

COUNSEL

Bart A. Riley, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and M. C. McIntosh Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

WEST J.

The defendant, plaintiff in error here, was indicted by a grand jury of Dade county for the crime of murder in the first degree. Upon trial he was found guilty of murder in the first degree with recommendation for mercy. He was adjudged guilty and condemned to life imprisonment. To review the judgment writ of error was taken from this court.

The defense interposed was insanity at the time of the alleged homicide.

The giving of each of the following instructions to the jury by the trial court is assigned as error:

'The court instructs the jury that mere weaknesses of intellect will not shield one who commits a crime, and in this case, although you may believe from the evidence that the defendant is mentally deficient in some degree, yet, unless you are reasonably satisfied by the evidence that, at the time the alleged crime is charged to have been committed by the defendant, his mental faculties were so weak and his mind so deficient that he was unconscious at the time of committing the act that it was wrong, and that he ought not to do it, and that he had not the ability or mental capacity to choose between right and wrong, then he cannot justify his acts, if he committed any, upon the grounds of insanity.'

'The jury are instructed that the defense of insanity is one which may be, and sometimes is, resorted to in cases where the proof of the overt act is so full and complete that any other means of avoiding conviction and escaping punishment seems hopeless. Therefore this is a defense to be weighed fully and justly, and, when satisfactorily established, must recommend itself to the favorable consideration of the humanity and justice of the jury.'

'It is my duty to say to you, gentlemen, that against the defense of insanity the law entertains no prejudice. On the contrary, if it be established by a preponderance of evidence, the law accords to the accused the full benefit of it, and your duty will be to acquit him of all criminal responsibility by reason of his insanity, if you believe he was insane when the act was done. Insanity is a defense to be weighed fairly, fully and justly, and, when proved in the manner I shall state and explain to you, must recommend itself to the sense of humanity and the justice of the jury.'

'Sanity being the normal and usual condition of mankind, the law presumes that every individual is in that condition; hence the state in a criminal prosecution may rest upon such presumption without further proof relative thereto. The fact of sanity is presumed to exist prima facie, and whoever denies such fact or interposes a defense based upon its untruth must prove it. The burden of overcoming the presumption of sanity is upon the person who alleges insanity.'

'Where the defense of insanity is relied upon, the rule in force in this state is that it the evidence introduced tends to rebut the presumption of sanity on the part of the accused, and jury entertain a reasonable doubt after due consideration of all the evidence as to the sanity of the accused, it is their duty to acquit. In other words, if the evidence introduced by the state in a criminal prosecution does not of itself raise a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the accused at the time when the crime was committed, then the law casts the burden upon the defendant of introducing evidence which would raise, or at least tend to raise, in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the accused when the

...