Wilson v. State, 4150
Decision Date | 24 February 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 4150,4150 |
Citation | 171 So.2d 903 |
Parties | Arthur WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John J. Duffy, Clearwater, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert G. Stokes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Appellant Arthur Wilson, seeks reversal of the judgment of conviction and prison sentence imposed pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the sedond degree.
At the trial Wilson admitted the fatal shooting of John Henry Cannida, but testified that he shot Cannida with a pistol in self-defense while trying to retreat from the scene following an argument punctuated with curses, threats to kill and menacting gestures on the part of Cannida, a man whose reputation for unrestrained violence was well established by the testimony. The State's witnesses testified that Wilson left the scene of the argument, returned with a gun, and without further provocation shot Cannida. By its verdict the jury rejected the version of defendant and his witnesses. Defendant's version, if believed, would have entitled him to acquittal by reason of his right of self-defense.
Appellant's main contention is that the trial judge committed error by charging the jury as follows:
(Italics added.)
Attorney for the defendant made timely objection to the portion of the court's charge relative to the illegality of possession of a pistol without having obtained a license from the County Commission on the grounds that is was without basis in the testimony and was prejudicial to the defendant.
There was no evidence introduced at the trial as to whether or not Wilson had a license or permit to possess the pistol. In response to questions asked by the judge, Wilson testified that he had bought the pistol nine or ten years previously for self-protection in his home, and had put the gun in his car because he was going fishing that night. He added that it was his custom to take either a rifle or pistol on fishing trips because he would be out in the woods at night.
Since the italicized portion of the quoted instruction immediately followed the judge's explanation of limitations on the right of self-defense, the language used was capable of suggestion to the jury that Wilson was in illegal possession of the death gun, therefore not reasonably free from guilt, and therefore foreclosed from claiming that he killed in necessary self-defense. So interpreted, the language in question was capable of causing the jury to apply incorrect principles of law in rejecting Wilson's assertion that he acted in self-defense. A person justified by perilous circumstances in using a weapon in self-defense, would not be deprived of such right by reason of being illegally in possession of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anthony v. State, 70--457
...183 So.2d 291; San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 327; Sciortino v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 93; Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 903; Farnell v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 753; Sikes v. State, case No. 69--299, opinion filed March 10, 1971, but not yet publish......
-
Green v. State, 6828
...more attributes of admissibility than to merely suggest, or tend to suggest, commission of an independent crime, goes out. Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 903; Andrews v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d In 1959 the Supreme Court, in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654, in a w......
-
Harris v. State
...Fla.App.1960, 124 So .2d 38; Horner v. State, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 863; State v. Norris, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 541; and Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 903. The Williams case, supra, held the test regarding the admissibility of similar fact evidence which tends to reveal the commi......
-
Monroe v. State
...Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 418; Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 94; Green v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 42; and Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 903, in support of this contention. However, upon close analysis it will be found that in these cases the test applied is whether......