Griffin v. State
| Decision Date | 13 July 1904 |
| Citation | 37 So. 209,48 Fla. 42 |
| Parties | GRIFFIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Monroe County; Livingston W Bethel, Judge.
Hamilton Griffin was found guilty of assault with intent to murder and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. The discretion of the trial court in permitting three youths aged 13, 14, and 16 years, respectively, to testify, not interfered with; no abuse being made to appear.
2. When there is but one exception to the refusal to give several charges, the court need examine no further after seeing that one was properly refused.
3. It is proper to refuse to charge as follows: 'Before the jury can convict of assault with intent to commit murder they must be satisfied from the evidence before them that, at the time the shooting took place, the defendant had formed a premeditated design to effect the death of A.'
4. The evidence being sufficient to have suported a verdict of murder in the second degree, at least, had the assaulted person died, a verdict of assault with intent to murder will not be disturbed.
COUNSEL Jefferson B. Browne, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Hamilton Griffin was found guilty of an assault with intent to murder and sentenced to a term of five years in the State Prison.
The assignments of error argued here may be reduced to three heads, viz., those based on the competency of three youths as witnesses, the refusal of certain requested instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
Three eyewitnesses to the shooting were boys aged 13, 14, and 16 years respectively; and, at the prisoner's request, they were examined by the court as to the pains and penalties of perjury. The intelligence and comprehension of these boys could be determined better by the judge who had them before him than by us, and we are not disposed, upon the record before us, to interfere with his discretion in permitting them to testify.
There are several assignments of error based upon the refusal to give charges numbered 1 to 12, both inclusive. There was but one single exception to the refusal of these charges, and under our repeated rulings, we need examine to further after seeing that one of those charges contains incorrect propositions of law. Lewis v. State, 42 Fla. 253, 28 So. 397, and cases cited. The first charge refused was as follows: 'Before the jury can convict the defendant of assault with intent to murder, they must be satisfied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maloy v. State
... ... 565, 31 So. 350; Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 ... So. 144; Jones v. State, 44 Fla. 74, 32 So. 793; ... McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla. 525, 26 So. 734; ... Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 So. 836; Pittman ... v. State, 45 Fla. 91, 34 So. 88; Shiver v ... State, 41 Fla. 630, 27 So. 36; Griffin v ... State, 48 Fla. 42, 37 So. 209; Parnell v ... State, 47 Fla. 90, 36 So. 165 ... The ... requested instruction numbered one refused by the court was ... as follows: 'In this case the evidence shows that the ... defendant was and is justified under the law, in taking the ... ...
-
Ammons v. State
...791. The same rule applies to charges requested and denied, and an exception taken en masse. See Metzger v. State, supra; Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42, 37 So. 209. to refusal to charge must be taken at the time of such refusal. It cannot be taken to the ruling on a motion for new trial base......
-
Britt v. State
...of error must make the same to appear, is a sound one and is firmly established. See Metzger v. State, 18 Fla. 481; Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42, 37 So. 209; v. State, 42 Fla. 253, 28 So. 397. The 13th requested instruction was erroneous as inapplicable to the evidence, as there was no evid......
-
Clinton v. State
...to testify in the case fully against the defendants. To which ruling the defendants then and there excepted.' In the case of Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42, text 43, So. 209, we used the following language: 'Three eyewitnesses to the shooting were boys aged 13, 14, and 16 years, respectively,......