Mixon v. State
| Decision Date | 01 April 1952 |
| Citation | 59 So.2d 38 |
| Parties | MIXON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J.M.McKinney, Cross City, Ben Lindsey and Declan O'Grady, Perry, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant and the man he later admitted killing had an altercation while the appellant was sitting in his jeep, the other man standing at the side of the vehicle. The appellant drove to his home nearby where he procured a revolver, while his adversary continued along the highway, afoot. The appellant, accompanied by his wife and their young daughter, then drove in the same direction until he overtook his former antagonist when both stopped.
From this point on, the versions of the state and the defendant differed materially.
According to the witnesses for the state, the pedestrian stepped back from the car, then put his hands forward, advanced, and projected the upper part of his body into the car just as the gun fired. A witness quoted appellant's wife as asking appellant immediately afterward: 'My Lord, why did you shoot this boy?'
The defendant's version, given by the defendant, his small son who was with him at the first meeting, and his wife and young daughter who were present at the shooting is an entirely different story. On the first occasion the deceased cursed the appellant and brandished a knife. The appellant drove to his home nearby where he left the boy and armed himself with a pistol. Then, with his wife and young daughter, he went in search of a deputy sheriff, taking the road along which the deceased was walking toward a fish camp a short distance away, where the road terminated. When the car overhauled the deceased, he jumped into the jeep waving a large fish knife, and beat the appellant's head against the steering wheel, whereupon the appellant shot him. Both husband and wife categorically denied the statement attributed to the wife.
The jury doubtless believed, as well they might have from the defendant's actions and the direction he eventually took, that when the first difficulty ended and the men separated, he went to his home, armed himself and deliberately began a pursuit of the deceased, instead of a search for a deputy sheriff. Nothing in the testimony indicates that an officer would likely have been found at the fish camp a short distance away where the road ended. They also were justified in believing that the deceased was not himself armed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Millett
...a difficulty, thus creating the necessity, and then justify the resulting homicide as an act of necessity in self-defense. Mixon v. State (1952) Fla., 59 So.2d 38; Hayes v. Wainwright (1969) D.C.Fla., 302 F.Supp. 716, 719; 40 Am.Jur.2d 433, Sec. 145. In State v. Mulkerrin (1915) 112 Me. 544......
-
Brady v. State, 86-1647
...of solicitation is not expressed in the title in contravention of Article III, Section 6, Florida Constitution. * * *6 Mixon v. State, 59 So.2d 38 (Fla.1952); Ramos v. State, 457 So.2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Section 924.07(4) Fla.Stat. (1985); Rule 9.140(c)(1)(H) ...
-
Crum v. State, 64-428
...the instigator of the altercation, is not in a position to urge self defense. See: Gaff v. State, 103 Fla. 642, 138 So. 48; Mixon v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 38. In examining a record to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict or the conclusion of the trier of fact, ......
-
Ramos v. State, 83-949
...to cross-appeal from a "ruling on a question of law" when, as here, the defendant appeals his judgment of conviction. See Mixon v. State, 59 So.2d 38 (Fla.1952) (cross-appeal by State under Section 924.07(4), Florida Statutes (1951), of trial court's reduction of conviction to manslaughter ......