Grady v. State
| Decision Date | 14 October 1937 |
| Parties | GRADY v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Marion County; J. C. B. Koonce, Judge.
Ethel Grady was convicted of the crime of manslaughter, and she brings error.
Reversed.
COUNSEL Charles A. Savage, of Ocala, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Tyrus A. Norwood, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
On June 12, 1936, plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of manslaughter in the circuit court of Marion county, Fla., and sentenced for a period of two years in the state prison of Florida. On writ of error to this court it is insisted that error accrued during the progress of the trial on the part of the state attorney when the following occurred:
'By Mr. Hunter: I will withdraw the question, and bring in the records.
'By the Court: And the answer is stricken.
'By Mr. Savage: I object to the remark of the State's Attorney that he will bring in the records.
It is fundamental that the burden of establishing defendant's guilt rests with the prosecution; the presumption of innocence accompanies the defendant during each step of the trial. We feel that these rules should be scrupulously observed. We believe the prosecuting officer by the above remarks invaded the legal rights of this defendant. It is admitted by attorneys participating in this cause that error was committed, and present citation of authorities to show the trial court corrected this error by instructing the jury to disregard these statements. It is an attractive theory and a lofty conclusion to assume that the court by its remarks cured this error; but to this we cannot agree. The influence of this improper remark is reflected in the verdict found, and that no human agency could remove the effect thereof from the minds of the jury when it was deliberating upon its verdict.
There is a sharp conflict in the evidence about defendant being under the influence of whisky at the time of the accident. Defendant produced some witnesses who testified that within a short time prior to the accident she had not been drinking, while the officers at the scene of the locus in quo testified that they smelled whisky on her breath and knew it was not the odor of beer, but could not name the particular make or brand of whisky; that she could not walk straight when placed in jail, and shortly thereafter called for coffee. This conflict could be reconciled by assuming she obtained whisky after leaving defendant's witnesses and prior to the accident, and this construction would permit each group of witnesses to speak truthfully.
The car defendant was driving had signs of a collision alleged to have been caused by striking deceased as he walked near the pavement, knocking him approximately 25 feet and breaking his legs, and the undertaker gave as his opinion the cause of death, this impact. While drivers of automobiles have legal duties to observe in the operation of cars on the highways, likewise, pedestrians traveling on or near these highways have certain legal duties and obligations to observe for their own preservation. If the deceased and associates had traveled the opposite side of the highway when and where the accident occurred, they could have seen approaching cars, and cars traveling the highway from their rear would have been several feet to their right.
This defendant remained at the scene of the accident and rendered every possible assistance. She proposed medical help to the injured, and her nervousness was not observed prior to the arrival of the officers. No whisky or other intoxicants were found on her person or about the car she was driving. We feel that the ends of justice will be best subserved by granting the defendant below another trial. The judgment is hereby reversed, and a new trial granted.
DISSENTING
Plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter under a count in an information charging manslaughter under the provisions of section 5563, R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glassman v. State, 78-1340
...this assertion. Oglesbyv. State, 156 Fla. 481, 23 So.2d 558 (1945); Simmons v. State, 139 Fla. 645, 190 So. 756 (1939); Grady v. State, 129 Fla. 416, 176 So. 431 (1937); Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564, 98 So. 609 (1923); Fitzgerald v. State, 227 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Ailer v. State, 114 ......
-
Savage v. State
...v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223; Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190; Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596; Grady v. State, 129 Fla. 416, 176 So. 431; Sanchez v. State, 133 Fla. 160, 182 So. The evidence discloses that Charles B. Savage, age 45, and Hannah Ford, a widow, app......
-
Mency v. State
...reasonable doubt," which is consistent with the State's burden in every criminal case. See § 90.302, Fla. Stat.; Grady v. State , 129 Fla. 416, 176 So. 431, 431 (1937) (the burden of establishing a defendant's guilt rests with the State). However, prior to 2005, the claim of self-defense co......