Thomson v. State
| Citation | 83 So. 291,78 Fla. 400 |
| Parties | THOMSON v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1919 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Pierre Branning, Judge.
Junius C. Thomson was convicted of murder in the first degree, his motion for a new trial was denied, and, from a judgment imposing a life imprisonment, he brings error. Reversed for new trial and appropriate proceedings thereon.
Syllabus by the Court
Where the defense of insanity is relied upon, the rule in force in this state is that if the evidence introduced tends to rebut the presumption of sanity on the part of the accused, and the jury, after due consideration of all the evidence, entertain a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, it is their duty to acquit.
The statutory definition of murder, 'the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed,' includes the element of a rational agency, and it devolves upon the state to show this as well as any other element of the crime. The law, however, presumes that all men are sane, and in the absence of evidence indicating a contrary state of mind, both court and jury are justified in acting upon this presumption and where the evidence establishes the criminal act, and indicates nothing as to the mental capacity of the accused to commit the deed, a conviction is not only authorized, but should be had. If, however, there arises from the evidence coming from any quarter, a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the accused, the presumption of the law is overcome and he is entitled to an acquittal, unless the state meets and overcomes this reasonable doubt arising in his favor.
Where insanity of a permanent type, or of a continuing nature, or possessed of the characteristics of an habitual or confirmed disorder of the mind, as distinguished from temporary or spasmodic mania, or disorders of mind produced by the violence of disease, is shown to have existed a short time prior to the commission of an act, it is presumed to continue up to the time of the commission of the act, unless this presumption is overcome by competent testimony.
The verdict of a jury will not be set aside on evidence of facts complicated and contradictory and which require an investigation into the character and credit of witnesses whose testimony it is necessary to compare and weigh; nor will the verdict be set aside as against the weight of the evidence, unless it preponderates so strongly against the verdict that the court cannot conclude such verdict was the result of a due consideration of the evidence; but a verdict that is clearly against the evidence should be set aside. The evidence in this case considered, and held not to sustain the verdict.
Where insanity of the defendant is a real issue in a criminal prosecution, the court should charge the jury that, if the defendant is acquitted on the ground of insanity, they should so state in the verdict in order that appropriate action may be taken by the court under section 3992 of the General Statutes of 1906.
COUNSEL G. A. Worley & Son, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Van C Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and D. Stuart Gillis, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
It appears that Thomson shot and killed his wife and also shot himself in a room where only the two persons were. He recovered and was indicted for fatally shooting his wife 'unlawfully, feloniously, and from a premeditated design to effect' her death. A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. A motion for a continuance for the term was denied and exception noted.
Under a plea of not guilty, the defense interposed was insanity at the time of the homicide. The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree with a recommendation for mercy by seven of the jurors. A motion for new trial was denied, and a writ of error was taken to a judgment imposing life imprisonment.
The indictment states that it was found 'at the spring term of the circuit court for Dade county'; but it was presented in open court on February 14, 1919, which was in the winter term of the court.
The statement as to the term is immaterial, and, as it could not have misled any one, it is mere harmless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pullen v. State
... ... 945, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... The ... defendant did not have a fair trial ... If ... there arises from the evidence from any quarter a reasonable ... doubt as to the sanity of the accused, the presumption of law ... as to his sanity is overcome ... Thomson ... v. State, 83 So. 291, 78 Fla. 400; Cunningham v ... State, 56 Miss. 276; Pollard v. State, 53 Miss ... 410; State v. Flye, 26 Me. 312; Commonwealth v ... Kimball, 24 Pick. 373; Commonwealth v. Dana, 2 ... Met. 340; Ogletree v. State, 28 Ala. 693; Ford v ... State, 19 So ... ...
-
State v. Garver
... ... 'insanity * * * of a continuing nature, or possessed of ... the characteristics of an habitual or confirmed disorder of ... the mind, as distinguished from temporary or spasmodic mania, ... or disorders of mind produced by the violence of ... disease'. Thomson v. State, 78 Fla. 400, 83 So ... 291, 292. It is highly improbable that the jury would have ... been misled by the instruction or would have taken it as ... applicable to any other state of affairs than that revealed ... by the evidence. The defendant is under sentence of ... ...
-
Britts v. State
... ... recognize is that when evidence is introduced which tends to ... rebut the presumption of sanity on the part of the accused, ... and the jury entertain a reasonable doubt, after considering ... all the evidence as to his sanity, it is their duty to ... In Thomson v ... State, 78 Fla. 400, 83 So. 291, 292, it was said: ... 'The law, however, presumed that all men are sane, and, ... in the absence of evidence indicating a contrary state of ... mind, both court and jury are justified in acting upon this ... presumption; and where the evidence establishes ... ...
-
McClure v. State
...Supreme Court from which it appears that the court was not required or under a duty to give the charge in question. In Thomson v. State, 78 Fla. 400, 83 So. 291, 292, the court held that a charge should be given as to the form of the verdict, but the statement of the court in that case did ......