Owens v. State

• Decision Date: 10 December 1912
• Parties: OWENS v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

60 So. 340

64 Fla. 383

OWENS v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

December 10, 1912

Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County; J. Emmett Wolfe, Judge.

L. B Owens was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In a prosecution for homicide, requested charges on the subject of self-defense that are abstract and incomplete with reference to the issues involved in the case may be refused.

A person attempting to justify a homicide on the ground of 'self-defense' must have used all reasonable means within his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger and to avert the necessity of taking human life.

Where the issues in a criminal prosecution are fully and fairly submitted to the jury, and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict rendered and no errors of law or procedure appear, the verdict will not be disturbed on writ of error.

COUNSEL Jones & Pasco, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.

Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., and J. P. Stokes, of Pensacola, for the State.

OPINION

WHITFIELD C.J.

This writ of error was taken to a conviction of manslaughter. The evidence shows that the accused went to the place where the deceased was plowing, and after some words fatally shot the deceased, when the deceased had a hammer in his hand, with which he threatened the accused. The court refused to give the following charges:

'If you believe from the evidence that the defendant, Owens was not the aggressor in the transaction, and that Stacey had raised a hammer as testified to and was in the act of throwing same at the defendant, then the defendant had a right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to protect himself from said assault.'

'A man has a legal right to go wherever his legitimate business calls him, and, if he is assaulted, has a right to stand his ground and defend himself.'

These charges are abstract and incomplete. A direction that, if the jury believed the deceased was in the act of throwing a hammer at the accused, 'then the defendant had a right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to protect himself from said assault' does not cover the issue in this case.

In order to justify the taking of human life, the accused must have used all reasonable means within his power, and consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger and to avert the necessity of taking human life. Stafford v State, 50 Fla. 134, 39...