Stafford v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 1905 |
| Citation | 50 Fla. 134,39 So. 106 |
| Parties | STAFFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Holmes County; Charles B. Parkhill, Judge.
Willie Stafford was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In a prosecution for homicide, instructions asked by the defendant on the subject of self-defense, which do not include the proposition that the defendant, to justify his acts on the ground of self-defense, must have used all reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid danger and to avert the necessity of taking the life of the deceased--a limitation which has been approved by this court in several cases--are properly refused when the charge given by the court as to self-defense was full and correct under the facts of the case.
In the prosecution of Willie Stafford for homicide, where the acts of the participants at the beginning of the fatal encounter are shown in evidence by eyewitnesses without material variance, and evidence of threats made by the deceased against the defendant eight days before the difficulty were admitted without objection, and not contradicted, other threats made by the deceased against 'one of the Staffords' more than fifteen months prior to the encounter were immaterial, and it was not error to exclude testimony as to such prior threats.
COUNSEL Maxwell & Reeves, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter in the circuit court for Holmes county, and to a judgment sentencing him to the state prison for seven years this writ of error was taken.
At the trial exception was taken to the refusal of the court to give each of three charges requested by the defendant, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
...upon his own belief to that effect. Green v. State, 43 Fla. 556, 30 So. 656; Fuentes v. State, 64 Fla. 64, 59 So. 395; Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 So. 106; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, 37 So. Morrison v. State, 42 Fla. 149, 28 So. 97; Smith v. State, 25 Fla. 517, 6 So. 482; Alvarez......
-
State v. Bobbitt
...he has reason to believe is imminent, if he may do so without apparently exposing himself to death or great bodily harm (Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 So. 106; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, 37 So. 917; Peadon v. State, 46 Fla. 124, text 135, 35 So. 204), and that whatever qualificatio......
-
Graham v. State
...... principles are fully covered in other instructions given at. the trial, even though couched in different language.'. . . Also. see Smith v. State, 57 Fla. 24, 48 So. 744, and. Tully v. State, 69 Fla. 662, 68 So. 934. . . The. discussion in Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 So. 106, and Barnhill v. [72 Fla. 517] State,. 56 Fla. 16, 48 So. 251, relative to charges and instructions. upon the law of self-defense, in helpful. Measured by the. principles announced in these last two cited cases, we are of. the opinion that this requested ......
-
Danford v. State
...under obligations to use reasonable efforts to avoid the necessity of killing Coley Clark. 1 Bishop's New Cr. Law, § 869; Stafford v. State, 50 Fla. 134, 39 So. 106. He used The nineteenth assignment of error is based on the refusal of the court to give an instruction undertaking to define ......