Kent v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1907 |
| Parties | KENT v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Francis B. Carter, Judge.
Jim Kent was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In a prosecution for homicide, a charge that, even though it be found that the defendant may have made statements as to the manner of the death different from his testimony at the trial, there is no presumption of law from his doing so that his testimony is untrue, was properly refused, there being no such presumption of law, and the credibility of the testimony was for the jury to determine.
Intent is not an essential element of the statutory definition of manslaughter when committed by culpable negligence, and charges predicated upon the theory that intent is in every case essential to the statutory crime of manslaughter are properly refused.
The refusal to charge that 'culpable negligence is not merely an omission to use ordinary caution and care, but must be the result of an intentional act or acts, which are done without the exercise of ordinary care or caution,' is not error since culpable negligence is not necessarily the result of an intentional act.
Where there is no error, and there is evidence to sustain the verdict, it will, under the settled rule, not be disturbed.
COUNSEL Price & Watson, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was indicted in the circuit court for Jackson county, charged with murder, and takes writ of error to a judgment and sentence convicting him of manslaughter.
From the transcript it appears that Jim Kent, the plaintiff in error, about 16 years of age, shot and killed Tom Creamer about 13 years of age. Kent claims the shooting was an accident. He testified: There was testimony that the two had quarreled several times, and that the accused had made threats against the deceased. After the killing the accused made contradictory statements as to it.
One witness, who was 300 or 400 yards away, testified:
Error is assigned on the refusal of the court to give the following charges requested by the defendant: 'The court charges you that, even though the defendant may, on the day of the death of Tom Creamer, if he is dead, have made statements as to the manner of his death different from what he testifies (if you find that he has testified as to the manner of his death), there is no presumption of law, from his doing so that what he testifies is untrue.' 'There is no presumption of law, arising from the making of contradictory statements, that the person making them is guilty of crime.'
The making of contradictory statements by the defendant as to the circumstances of the killing was a matter for the jury to consider in passing upon the credibility of the defendant as a witness in the case. The requested instructions encroached upon this province of the jury, and, as no presumptions of law exist as stated in these instructions, they were misleading and properly refused.
Refusals to give the following charges are assigned as error: 'The burden is upon the state to prove to you by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing of Tom Creamer was at the hands of the defendant, and was not the result of an unavoidable accident.' 'If, after a consideration of the whole of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt whether the killing of Creamer was intentional, or the result of an unavoidable accident, you will give the defendant the benefit of such doubt and acquit him.' 'If, after, a consideration of the whole of the evidence, you believe that Tom Creamer was killed, either accidentally or intentionally by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State
...1 So.2d 580 (1941); Gainer v. State, 100 Fla. 164, 129 So. 576 (1930); Folks v. State, 85 Fla. 238, 95 So. 619 (1923); Kent v. State, 53 Fla. 51, 43 So. 773 (1907). III. Although the common-law crime of manslaughter was codified by statute in 1868, its definition as the "killing of a human ......
-
Robinson v. State
...that the jury were not governed by it. Adams v. State, 56 Fla. 1, 48 So. 219; Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 So. 251; Kent v. State, 53 Fla. 51, 43 So. 773; Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56, 43 So. Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 249; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 So. 536. The fifth,......
-
Lewis v. State
... ... State, 40 Fla. 155, 24 So. 65; McCoy ... and Thomas v. State, 40 Fla. 494, 24 So. 485; ... Johnson v. State, 51 Fla. 44, 40 So. 678; ... Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56, 43 So. 87; ... Douglass v. State, 53 Fla. 27, 43 So. 424; ... Williams v. State, 53 Fla. 84, 43 So. 431; Kent ... v. State, 53 Fla. 51, 43 So. 773 ... No ... error is made to appear in this assignment ... The ... third assignment is that 'the court erred in refusing to ... allow the defendant's attorney to interrogate the witness ... N. S. Townsend as to whether or not the [55 ... ...
-
Cannon v. State
... ... 1, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 ... Am. St. Rep. 17; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, ... 60 So. 792, 65 Fla. 1, 3; Fitzgerald v. State, 20 ... So. 966, 112 Ala. 34; Shaw v. State, 102 So. 550, 88 ... Fla. 320; Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 5 So ... 714, 25 Fla. 394, 419, 421; Kent v. State, 43 So ... 773, 53 Fla. 51. This definition of the character of ... negligence necessary to be shown to authorize the [91 Fla ... 222] recovery of punitive damages may well be applied as a ... definition of 'culpable negligence' as used in the ... statute (section 5039) defining ... ...