GRANVILLE ELLIS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a manslaughter conviction, finding that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding self-defense and the burden of proof for insanity. The court emphasized the need for a new trial to ensure substantial justice.
Yes, the jury instruction stating that a defendant must satisfy the jury that the defense was necessary was erroneous. The defendant is only required to present evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt regarding insanity or the necessity of self-defense.
“The sanity of the defendant at the time of the alleged homicide was a material issue at the trial, as was also an issue of self defense.”
Establishes the key issues presented at the trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGranville Ellis was indicted for first-degree murder and found guilty of manslaughter. The trial involved issues of the defendant's sanity and self-de…
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
The plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with Herman Young, Hallie J. H. Ellis, alias Hallie Ellis, and William Young, on a charge of murder in the first degree. There was a severance and the defendants were given separate trials. Upon a trial plaintiff in error was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to be confined in the State prison at hard labor for a period of one year, To review the judgment imposing this sentence writ of error was taken from this court.
The sanity of the defendant at the time of the alleged homicide was a material issue at the trial, as was also an issue of self defense. There was substantial testimony tending to show that at the date of the homicide the defendant was not' of sound, normal mentality, and also testimony that the defendant, though present with others similarly charged, did not fire the fatal shot. The defendant should be permitted to adduce testimony as to his insanity at the date of the homicide. Scott v. State, 64 Fla. 490, 60 South. Rep. 355; Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170, 11 South. Rep.
618. An instruction given that “before a' person, can avail himself of the defense that he used a deadly weapon in defense of his life and be justified, he must satisfy the jury that the defense was necessary at the time,” etc., and assigned as error, was erroneous (Hathaway v. State, 32 Fla. 56, 13 South. Rep. 592; Hubbard v. State, 37 Fla. 156, 20 South. Rep. 235; Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105, 32 South. Rep. 896) in that a defendant is required only to present evidence sufficient to raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s sanity or as to the necessity for the firing of the fatal shot by the defendant’s accomplice to save the defendant and his accomplices from death or great bodily harm by the decedent. Although the charge quoted in part was not excepted to, yet on the whole record this court is' of opinion that substantial justice demands a new trial because of the proceedings referred to.
Judgment reversed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne-and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 91 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1956)…e terrible tragedy reflected by this record, our system of justice will permit of no other conclusion, and a new trial must be awarded both appellants. See Ziegler v. State, supra, 116 So. 241; Myers v. State, supra, 155 So. 797, and Ellis v. State, 86 Fla. 155, 97 So. 285. • Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion-. THOMAS, THORNAL and SEBRING, JJ., concur. . DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., dissent.…
Authorities Cited
- Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1892)
- Lane v. State, 44 Fla. 105 (Fla. 1902)
- Hubbard v. State, 37 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1896)
- Hathaway v. State, 32 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1893)
- Scott v. State, 64 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1912)