WILL LASSITER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Will Lassiter was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter after being charged with assault with intent to commit murder. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction due to erroneous admission of non-expert opinion testimony, improper jury instructions on assault that failed to require unlawfulness as an element, and procedural defects in arraignment.
The court held that the non-expert opinion testimony was erroneously admitted and prejudicial to the defendant, that the jury instructions on assault and aggravated assault were deficient in failing to require that the assault be unlawful, and that procedural irregularities existed regarding arraignment, requiring reversal of the conviction.
“It seems to us that it was purely opinion testimony upon a matter the jury were competent to pass on, that it was erroneously admitted and was injurious to the plaintiff in error.”
Establishes that the trial court improperly admitted non-expert opinion testimony on a matter within the jury's competence, constituting reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLassiter was tried in the Criminal Court of Record for Walton County on a charge of assault with intent to commit murder. The case involved conflictin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assault With Intent To Commit Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
Hocker, J.
On an information charging assault with intent to commit murder, Will Lassiter was tried and convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter in the Criminal Court of Record for Walton County. He was sentenced to pay a fine; and in default of payment to imprisonment in the county jail. The case is here on writ of error. The testimony was conflicting as to what transpired when the alleged assault ivas made, and particularly whether Bud Palmer, the alleged assaulted party, cut at the plaintiff in error with a knife and actually cut his coat and a lead pencil in the pocket of the.coat.
The prosecuting officer asked two of the State Witnesses this question “what effect would it have upon a person who may have had on this cost for it and this pencil to have been cut as it was?” The plaintiff in error objected to these questions as irrelevant and immaterial and as asking for the opinion of witnesses who were not experts. The answers in one case was “it would have turned him around,” and in the other, “it would have staggered him back considerably.” This evidence tended to rebut the statements of the plaintiff in error and his witnesses. It seems to us that it was purely opinion testimony upon a matter the jury were competent" to pass on, that it was erroneously admitted and was injurious to the plaintiff in error. Several charges given by the court upon the subject of assault and aggravated assault fail to state that in order to a conviction the assault must be unlawful. Under the circumstances these charges were prejudicial to the plaintiff in error. Two instructions requested by the defendant were properly refused. They do not state the law of self-defense accurately as laid down in Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105, 32 South. Rep. 896, and other cases in this court.
The record in this case does not show that the defendant below was ever arraigned, or that he pleaded, but does show that he waived arraignment. The better practice in felony cases is to require the defendant to be arraigned and have him plead. If lie pleads not guilty, an issue is made to be tried by the jury.
The judgment below is reversed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Si-iacklepord, and Cockrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)…us in either of the rulings of which complaint is made.' We call attention to the difference in the question propounded in the instant case and the questions propounded in the cases of Mann v. State, supra; Jones v. State, supra; Lassiter v. State, 64 Fla. 337, 59 South. Rep. 894, upon which the defendant relies, also the variance in the attendant facts and circumstances. As we said in Alford v. State, 47 Fla. 1, text 8, 36 South. Rep. 436, “Ordinary witnesses may give their opinions in connection with th…
Authorities Cited
- Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105 (Fla. 1902)