Lightbourn v. State
| Decision Date | 31 July 1937 |
| Citation | 175 So. 857,129 Fla. 43 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | LIGHTBOURN v. STATE. |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Dade County; Ben C. Willard Judge.
Harold Lightbourn was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.
COUNSEL Roger Edward Davis, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of manslaughter.
The defendant interposed the defense of self-defense.
During the course of giving instructions to the jury the court instructed the jury as follows: 'Before a person can avail himself of the defense that he used a deadly weapon in defense of his life, he must satisfy the jury beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that it was necessary to protect his own life and protect himself from great bodily harm.' The court gave the jury other instructions which were in conflict with the enunciation included in this instruction. The charge of the court was excepted to as a whole. In the motion for a new trial there was included ground 11 as follows: 'The instructions to the court were insufficient and inapplicable to the evidence of the case.' This is the only reference in the motion for new trial to the instructions of the court to the jury.
Assignment of error No. 6 is: 'Defendant contends that the court erred in overruling and denying defendant's motion for new trial because the court's charge to the jury had a tendency to mislead and confuse the jury and did mislead and confuse the jury.'
Assignment of error No. 4 is: 'Defendant contends that the court erred in overruling and denying defendant's motion for a new trial because the charge of the court as given the jury was an erroneous statement of the law as applied to the evidence adduced at the trial.'
It is apparent that a strict enforcement of the rules of practice and procedure by us would prevent our consideration of the merits of the matter complained of and, therefore, in the interest of justice we shall not apply the rules strictly to this case because the error was patent and the language used in the instruction complained of so contrary to the law in that regard as to cause us to feel that the judgment must be reversed.
In Pinder v. State of Florida, 27 Fla. 370, 8 So. 837 841, 26 Am.St.Rep. 75, where ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pellegrino, 19946
...Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120, 121 (1944)(citing Wilson v. State, 30 Fla. 234, 11 So. 556, 561 (1892)); Lightbourn v. State, 129 Fla. 43, 175 So. 857 (1937); Russell, 54 So. at 361. On the other hand, people "do not hold their lives at the mercy of unreasonable fears or excessi......
-
Deleware Securities Corp. v. Kahn
... ... 32, ... 153 So. 308, 310. The issues are stated in the former opinion ... so that it is not necessary to state them here again, ... although it is pertinent to restate here a part of what was ... stated in that opinion, which is as follows: ... ...
-
Phillips v. State, 76-1026
...judge erred as contended by appellant. Therefore, the decision of the trial court on this point is also affirmed. See Lightbourn v. State, 129 Fla. 43, 175 So. 857 (1937); McKnight v. State, 341 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fernandez v. Arocha, 308 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Darty v.......
-
Harris v. State
...234, 11 So. 556, 17 L.R.A. 654; Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120; Russell v. State, 61 Fla. 50, 54 So. 360; Lightbourn v. State, 129 Fla. 43, 175 So. 857. The State, in its very able brief, contends that the homicide was unnecessary and was induced by the unreasonable fear or cowa......