Whidden v. State
| Decision Date | 27 June 1912 |
| Citation | 64 Fla. 165,59 So. 561 |
| Parties | WHIDDEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Washington County; J. W. Perkins, Judge.
I. L Whidden was convicted of murder in the first degree, and brings error. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff
Syllabus by the Court
In a prosecution for murder in the first degree for the unlawful killing of a human being from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or any human being, the defendant under a plea of not guilty may introduce any relevant and proper evidence tending to show a lack of premeditated design in the admitted killing so as to reduce the offense to a lower degree of homicide. This defense is not inconsistent with evidence tending to show self-defense.
A sudden transport of passion, caused by adequate provocation if the suspends the exercise of judgment, and dominates volition, so as to exclude premeditation and a previously formed design, may not excuse or justify a homicide; but it may be sufficient to reduce a homicide below murder in the first degree, although the passion does not entirely dethrone the actor's reason.
COUNSEL W. O. Butler, of Chipley, J. W. Kehoe, of Pensacola, and L. D. McRae and A. W. Weeks, both of Chipley for plaintiff in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, of Tallahassee, for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree with recommendation to mercy and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On writ of error several assignments of error are argued, but only one deserves consideration.
At the trial the defendant as a witness offered to testify that about 20 minutes before the fatal shooting on Monday morning the defendant's wife asked him not to leave home and told him that on the Saturday night before the deceased had broken in her house and room in the nighttime and made an assault upon her, and that he had told her at the time that, if she breathed it to the defendant (her husband,) he (the deceased) would choke her stiff; that for these reasons his wife cried and begged the defendant not to go; and that this was about 20 minutes before the shooting which occurred a short distance away. It was explained that this testimony was offered upon the theory that it is proper testimony to go to the jury in order that they may determine the state of mind that the defendant was in at the time he did the shooting, in order that the jury may determine whether the killing was done from and with a premeditated design, or done under such circumstances as would reduce the killing to some lesser degree of unlawful homicide other than murder in the first degree. This testimony was excluded, and the only, substantial error disclosed is predicated on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Schnopps
...to a discovery of the act itself, and is sufficient evidence of provocation, id. at 441, 348 N.E.2d 802. See Whidden v. State, 64 Fla. 165, 167, 59 So. 561 (1912); Jackson v. State, 135 Ga. 684, 685, 70 S.Ct. 245 (1911); Haley v. State, 123 Miss. 87, 104, 85 So. 129 (1920); Soderman v. Stat......
-
Forehand v. State
... ... compelled, or constrained by anger of such degree as for the ... moment to cloud the reason and momentarily obscure what might ... otherwise be a deliberate purpose by its impelling influence, ... as was clearly stated in the case of Whidden v ... State, 64 Fla. 165, 59 So. 561: ... 'A ... sudden transport of passion, caused by adequate provocation, ... if it suspends the exercise of judgment, and dominates ... volition, so as to exclude premeditation and a previously ... formed design, may not excuse or justify a ... ...
-
Childers v. State
... ... properly [74 Fla. 294] admitted. Bonner v. State, 67 ... Fla. 492, 65 So. 663; Maloy v. State, 52 Fla. 101, ... 41 So. 791; Smith v. State, 48 Fla. 307, 37 So. 573; ... Andrew v. State, 62 Fla. 10, 56 So. 681; White ... v. State, 59 Fla. 53, 52 So. 805; Whidden v ... State, 64 Fla. 165, 59 So. 561 ... To the ... witness Mrs. L. B. Herring the following question was ... propounded by the state: 'Prior to your husband's ... death was there an illicit or adulterous relation between you ... and the defendant, Childers?' To this question the ... ...
-
Tien Wang v. State
...and the defendant seized a pistol from Pledger and fired several times, killing both men. The court, noting the rule in Whidden v. State, 64 Fla. 165, 59 So. 561 (1912), stated the principles which governed its disposition of the "[A] well-defined purpose to kill may be induced, compelled, ......