Hobbs v. State
| Decision Date | 05 April 1922 |
| Citation | 83 Fla. 480,91 So. 555 |
| Parties | HOBBS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; James M. Peeler Judge.
Joseph C. Hobbs was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Refusal of requested instruction not excepted to at the time is not basis for assignment of error. Unless the ruling of the trial court refusing to give a requested instruction is excepted to at the time of the refusal, such ruling cannot be made the basis of an assignment of error which may be considered by the appellate court.
One general exception to separate instructions on distinct law propositions is not available if one such charge was properly refused. Where refusals to give two or more separate instructions containing distinct propositions of law are embraced in one general exception, the exception thus taken is not available before the appellate court if any one of such charges was properly refused.
Proof of intoxication held not indispensable to conviction on charge of killing with an automobile driven at high speed while intoxicated. Upon a charge of manslaughter, resulting from the culpable negligence of the accused in operating an automobile at an unlawful rate of speed upon a public street of a city while in an intoxicated condition, by colliding with the deceased, where there is ample proof to sustain the allegation that defendant was operating the automobile upon such public street at an unlawful and dangerous rate of speed under conditions that warrant a finding of culpable negligence, proof of intoxication of the defendant at the time is not an indispensable prerequisite to a conviction of the crime charged.
Evidence held to sustain conviction. Evidence examined, and found to be sufficient to sustain the verdict finding defendant guilty of manslaughter.
Ion L. Farris, J. N. Morris, and L. S. Gaulden, all of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, Joseph C. Hobbs, plaintiff in error here, was found guilty upon a charge of manslaughter. To the judgment imposing sentence, writ of error was taken from this court.
The charge contained in the information is that the defendant, on March 21, 1921, while in an intoxicated condition, by his culpable negligence in operating an automobile at a great and unlawful rate of speed upon the public street of the city of Jacksonville, and in colliding with and striking the deceased, who was then upon such street, inflicted divers wounds upon him, producing his death.
The assignments of error raise two general questions, namely: The sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of conviction and rulings of the court in giving certain charges, and refusing to give certain other charges requested.
At the trial a number of special charges were requested by counsel for defendant. It does not appear that any of them were given. The charges requested, 14 in number, in consecutive order are copied in the bill of exceptions appearing in the record. Following the requested charges it is recited that the trial judge did consider and decide that all such charges should not be given, and did refuse to give same, to which decision and refusal defendant did then and there except.
The rule is that, unless the ruling of the trial court refusing to give a requested instruction is excepted to at the time of the refusal, such ruling cannot be made the basis of an assignment of error which may be considered by the appellate court. Thomas v. State, 49 Fla. 123 38 So. 516; Milton v. State, 40 Fla. 251, 24 So. 60; Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 20 So. 232; Shepherd v. State, 36 Fla. 374, 18 So. 773. The exception recited in the bill of exceptions may be considered as a general exception to the refusal of the court to give all of the requested charges, but in such case such ruling is not error if a single requested instruction was properly refused. Moore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cannon v. State
...as to defendant being in such condition could not be admitted in evidence in support of the element of culpable negligence. Hobbs v. State, 91 So. 555, 83 Fla. 480; Shaw State, 102 So. 550, 88 Fla. 320; Meier v. State, 99 So. 124, 87 Fla. 133; Denmark v. State, 102 So. 246, 88 Fla. 244; Mat......
-
Whitfield v. State
...charges, the ruling will not be held erroneous if a single charge was properly refused, this assignment cannot be sustained. Hobbs v. State, 83 Fla. 480, 91 So. 555; Moore v. Lanier, 52 Fla. 353, 42 So. Griffin v. State, 48 Fla. 42, 37 So. 209; Gass v. State, 44 Fla. 70, 32 So. 109; King v.......
-
Flint v. State, 1426
...not actually intoxicated or drunk, are more apt to be heedless, reckless, and daring than when free from such influence. Hobbs v. State, supra [83 Fla. 480, 91 So. 555]; Meier v. State, supra [87 Fla. 133, 99 So. In Taylor v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 725, the Supreme Court affirmed a convi......
-
Duren v. State
...convictions where speed, under the circumstances in which it was found, was evidence of reckless disregard for life. Hobbs v. State, 83 Fla. 480, 91 So. 555; Johnson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 527; see also State v. McIvor, 1 W.W.Harr., Del., 123, 111 A. 616; and State v. Whaley, 191 ......