Williamson v. State

Decision Date23 March 1931
Citation101 Fla. 1219,133 So. 109
PartiesWILLIAMSON v. STATE.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; George Couper Gibbs, Judge.

Ertle Williamson, alias Earl Williamson, was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

In a prosecution for homicide it is not error to refuse to charge the jury upon the theory that the defendant was in his home and had a right to defend himself without retreating, when the evidence showed the defendant had moved to another place a day or two before the homicide, and had entered his former home by force just before the fatal altercation.

Where an attorney, without objection being made, assisted the state attorney in a prosecution for homicide, the mere failure of the transcript of the record to show that such attorney was sworn as assistant state attorney does not show an unlawful participation in the trial, when there is no showing that the prosecution was not at all times under the control of the state attorney.

Testimony of a witness as to statements made by the defendant at the coroner's inquest was not illegally admitted at the trial upon a showing that the defendant was warned of his constitutional rights and privileges in giving evidence against himself, not by the magistrate but by the county detective at the direction of the magistrate; the defendant expressing a desire to make a statement.

Even if a charge given by the court as to mutual combat be not warranted by the evidence, it is not reversible error where the charge as given reasonably could not have been harmful to the defendant in view of the testimony as to place and circumstances of the homicide.

COUNSEL

Wm. A. Hallowes, Jr., and Miles W. Lewis, both of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Fred H Davis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

WHITFIELD P.J.

The plaintiff in error, indicted for murder, was convicted of manslaughter and took writ of error. He had lived in an apartment with another occupant, but had moved to another place a day or two before the tragedy. He returned to the apartment late at night as he testifies to get some personal articles he had left there; but he entered by force, and an altercation ensued with the deceased who was in the apartment.

At the trial the court refused a requested charge upon the theory that the defendant was in his home and had a right to defend himself without retreating. Such refusal is not error because at the time of the homicide the defendant was not in his dwelling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. James
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 2003
    ...force to eject the intruder, whom he may kill in doing it, if this extreme measure appears unavoidable."); but see Williamson v. State, 101 Fla. 1219, 133 So. 109, 110 (1931)(denying castle doctrine protection to defendant for homicide committed in residence from which defendant had moved).......
  • In re Cogswell
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Florida
    • September 17, 2020
  • Charles Ringling Co. v. Muirheid
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1931
    ... ... either by written binding agreement or by delivery thereof to ... the claimant ... The ... rule established in this state is that when it is shown in ... the event of an absolute sale of personal property that the ... vendor has continued in the possession of the same, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT