Britts v. State
| Decision Date | 02 May 1947 |
| Citation | 30 So.2d 363,158 Fla. 839 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | BRITTS v. STATE. |
Rehearing Denied May 30, 1947.
Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; Edwin L. Jones judge.
Evan T Evans, of Jacksonville, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Rebecca Bowles Marks, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appeal brings for review judgment of conviction of assault with intent to commit manslaughter.
Two questions are presented in brief of appellant. We think the case may properly be disposed of by determination of appellant's first contention which is:
That appellant was so mentally deranged at the time of the commission of the act which he was charged with committing that he was not criminally responsible for his act.
The uncontradicted evidence is that for about ten days prior to Monday before the Tuesday evening on which the alleged assault occurred the appellant had been on a drunk. He arrived in Jacksonville from Charleston, S. C., on Monday night. Shortly after arriving in Jacksonville he decided to go back to his mother's home. He bought a bus ticket to take the next bus back. The bus was not due to leave until about 8 o'clock the next morning. He stayed in the bus station except for time spent in going across the street several times for coffee. He was in a very nervous condition. About morning he became obsessed with the belief that three sailors, who had come into the bus station, intended to do him bodily harm and became very much afraid of them. At about time for the bus to leave he approached a policeman, told him of his fears and asked the police officer to go with him to the bus and see that he was not hurt. He then thought the sailors were going to kill him. The police officer told him that it was about time for him to go off duty. He then asked the police officer if he could walk with him from the bus station. As he was leaving the bus station with the policeman he saw some shore patrolmen and asked them to give him assistance. They told him they could not do anything as long as those fellows did not jump on him. He walked on down the street with the policeman. He then went to get on the bus but did not get on it because he saw the three sailors again and was still imbued with the notion that they intended to assault him. So he went out and inquired the way to get back on Main Street. It was his intention to go out on Main Street and catch the bus out there. He stopped by a filling station on Main Street and made inquiry as to when the next bus would by going north. He stayed at the filling station sometime and then caught a city bus, which turned out to be the one he intended to catch, and rode it out to the end of the line. When he got there he asked the driver how to go back to Main Street. He got on Main Street, stopped at a fruit stand and bought some cigarettes. He then saw a city patrol car, went over and told the man in the car what had happened to him and asked if he should go out to the edge of town to catch a bus or go back to the bus station. They advised him to go back to the station. He did not do that but went back into the filling station, where he stayed until practically dark. There he became very much frightened again and ran away from there until he saw a place all lighted up then he decided that he had better avoid that. So he ran back of the house where some dogs started barking at him. He climbed the fence and ran into the woods. When he came out of the woods he was in some one's back yard; he went to the back door, saw a man, woman and little girl in the house and hollered and asked if the man would take him back across the woods where he could catch a city bus. He then thought a crowd of people were out on the highway waiting for him and he asked this man and woman if he could hide in the house. They told him no and for him to get away from there. So he left that house. He saw cars on the highway and, thinking the people were after him, he waited until the cars got by and then ran across the road to another house. At the first house at which he saw a light he knocked on the door. Some one came to the door and he asked if they had a car and could take him to town where he could get a city bus. He told them that he thought the people were after him and were going to kill him and he asked these people to call the city police. These people observed that the man was very much frightened and appeared to believe himself in great danger. They allowed him to have a seat and gave him a drink of water. These people were Mr. H. E. Sergeant and his wife, Mrs. Sergeant. The Sergeants called the officers and County Road Patrolman Higginbotham and his riding partner Lee responded to the call and assured appellant that they would take care of him. After some parley he got into the car with them and they took him to the filling station where he had spent most of the afternoon and asked the man there about him. At this time he became very much afraid of the two patrolmen. He got out of the car at the filling station but they told him to get back into the car, which he did. They left that place and he thought they were taking him to the bus station. They soon stopped in front of a hotel and one of the patrolmen got out. He soon discovered that they were not taking him to the bus station. Then he jumped out of the car, diving out head first through the window, scrambled to his feet and ran. Patrolman Higginbotham ran after him and caught him and while he was taking him back to the car appellant grabbed Higginbotham's pistol and shot him twice. Appellant testified that he remembered absolutely nothing from the time he jumped out of the car until he had a dim recollection of a lot of people being crowded around him and he believed they were going to kill him. The next thing he appears to remember was that he found himself locked up. He says he remembers nothing about the shooting.
Two eminent physicians, both specialists in nervous and mental diseases, examined him sometime after this occurrence. They both testified in effect that after the examination, and getting his case history, it was their opinion that at the time of the incident he was suffering from alcoholic hallucinosis and that it was probable that a man would remember all that occurred while suffering those hallucinations up to a certain point where under great excitement he would become amnesic for a period and would remember nothing which happened during that period and yet begin to remember what occurred against after the amnesia had passed away.
All of appellant's conduct during the period testified about is shown to be consistent with his having been under alcoholic hallucinosis and entirely inconsistent with any other conclusion.
It, therefore, follows that the uncontradicted evidence, now shown to be inherently improbable, leads to the conclusion that the accused was at the time of the alleged assault mentally deranged, or temporarily insane and not criminally responsible for his conduct, although that condition was super-induced by the previous use of alcoholic liquor.
In Bouvier's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crusoe v. State
...the time' is deficient because (a) he did not say he was too intoxicated to entertain the requisite intent to defraud, Britts v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 839, 30 So.2d 363, or (b) that he did not become voluntarily intoxicated for the purpose of carrying out the intentions to defraud, Garner v......
-
Lynn v. State
...F.2d 52; People v. Skeoch, (1951) 408 Ill. 276, 96 N.E.2d 473; Handspike v. State, (1947) 203 Ga. 115, 45 S.E.2d 662; Britts v. State, (1947) 158 Fla. 839, 30 So.2d 363; Graham v. People, (1934) 95 Colo. 544, 38 P.2d At least one case suggests that the outcome might have been different had ......
-
Reid v. Florida Real Estate Commission
...is a mental deficiency with reference to the Particular act in question, although it may not be a General incapacity. Britts v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 839, 30 So.2d 363; Davis v. State, 1902, 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822, text 828; Argent v. United States, C.A.Fla.1963; 325 F.2d 162. The guilt of ......
-
Harris v. State
...where both cases held the defense of intoxication was a question for the jury. Although the Florida Supreme Court in Britts v. State, 158 Fla. 839, 30 So.2d 363 (Fla.1947) held that intoxication in that case had been established as a matter of law and therefore a jury verdict was reversed, ......
-
Punishing Temporary Drug-induced Insanity: an Analysis Ofstate v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260, 795 N.w.2d 645 (2011)
...v. Herd, 604 N.E.2d 1294, 1298 (Mass. 1992). 145. Porreca, 433 A.2d 1204. 146. Id. at 1208. 147. Id. at 1206. 148. Britts v. State, 30 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 149. Id. at 364. 150. People v. Conrad, 385 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). 151. Id. at 281. 152. Beck v. State, 76 Ga. 452, 453 (1886). ......