Brock v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1954 |
| Citation | 69 So.2d 344 |
| Parties | BROCK v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
C. A. Avriett, Jasper, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant below has appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Columbia County finding him guilty of murder in the first degree. There is no controversy about the circumstances under which the deceased, Tommy Joe Brock, the 5-year old son of the defendant, met his death, or the fact that the defendant killed the child by grasping him by the legs and dashing his head against a tree.
The record shows that after a violent quarrel with his wife, culminating a long period of stress and separation between the parties, the defendant grabbed the child, deposited it in his automobile, and fled from a neighbor's home in which the defendant and his wife had been quarreling. After traveling a short distance he abandoned the car and ran into a swamp, with the struggling and screaming boy in his arms. Mrs. Brock called the sheriff and when he arrived a searching party was organized. Later that night, the party found the defendant on the edge of the swamp and took him into custody. At that time he was in an incoherent state and kept remarking that he had 'sent the boy to Heaven.' After being locked up in jail he made the statement, among others, 'I tried to drown the baby and my nerves failed me, and then I taken and beat him up against a tree.' The following morning the defendant directed a searching party to the scene of the confessed crime and the body of the child was found at the base of a tree under circumstances confirming the defendant's latter version of the death.
As the reason for this brutal homicide the defendant voluntarily confessed to a deputy sheriff that he killed the baby because 'his wife was getting a divorce * * * and he thought the Court was going to give her the baby, and he would rather see it dead than for her to raise it; that she was the cause of [another] son being in Raiford and he would rather see this baby dead than to have her raise it.' From this, and other uncontroverted evidence on the same issue, the jury had the right to find that there was a premeditated design on the part of the defendant to kill his child. See Robinson v. State, 148 Fla. 153, 3 So.2d 804.
The only real issue in the case is as to the question of insanity. After the grand jury had returned an indictment against the defendant his attorney filed a suggestion of insanity and requested a medical examination pursuant to the provisions of section 917.01, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., contending in the petition that the accused should not be put to trial by reason of being insane at the time of indictment aw well as at the time of the commission of the offense. The trial court appointed a psychiatrist and a physician to conduct the examination. The psychiatrist concluded that the defendant was sane. The physician concluded that he was insane. On this and other evidence adduced at an open hearing the trial judge concluded that the accused was legally sane and that the trial should go forward. We find no error in this ruling.
Under our statute, as at common law, a hearing upon the issue is obligatory if a reasonable doubt is raised as to the defendant's sanity. Sec. 917.01, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A.; 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, sec. 44. The general rule is that 'the report on accused's sanity by the * * * investigating body is merely advisory to the court, which itself retains the responsibility of decision'. 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 940, p. 239. And even prior to the enactment of Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, the law was settled in this state that 'the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mims v. United States
...94 L.Ed. 1388 (parent murdered own child); Roberts v. State, 210 Miss. 777, 50 So.2d 356 (grandfather murdered granddaughter); Brock v. State, Fla., 69 So.2d 344 (father murdered son); Mott v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 145, 232 P.2d 166 (drunk father murdered daughter); State v. Lucas, 30 N.J. 37, ......
-
Parkin v. State
...must raise a reasonable doubt as to whether he had a sufficient degree of reason to know that he was doing a wrongful act. Brock v. State, 69 So.2d 344 (Fla.1954). When the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was entered, it was done so with knowledge of the existing statutes and case ......
-
Foster v. State, 71--370
...verdict that the appellant was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Acree v. State, 153 Fla. 561, 15 So.2d 262; Brock v. State, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 344; Norman v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 186; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Byrd v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.......
-
Brown v. State
...to the Court, which itself retains the responsibility of the decision. 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 940(5), p. 746. As stated in Brock v. State, 69 So.2d 344 (Fla.1954): 'The trial court appointed a psychiatrist and a physician to conduct the examination. The psychiatrist concluded that the def......