Opinion

Smith v. State

  • 129 Fla. 388
  • 176 So. 506
  • 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1120
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Filed
Oct 4, 1937
Status
Published
Author
Brown
On the bench
Buford, Ellis, Terrell, Whitfield, Chapman, Brown
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 37.3%

The opinion

*398

Brown, J.

(dissenting in part).:—The motion of defendant to strike the statement of one of the State’s witnesses to the effect that the defendant “didn’t look right” should have been granted. It was a mere conclusion of the witness, and does not come up to the rule laid down in Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144 , 14 So. 409 . However, I agree that this ruling did not constitute reversible error in this case.

It is held in many jurisdictions that the killing of an innocent man cannot-be justified or excused on the ground that it was done under threats and compulsion from a third person or persons in order to save the slayer’s life. This feature of this case might be proper for consideration by the Board of Pardons, but it cannot be considered here as a ground for setting aside the verdict and judgment. See 30 C.

J.

88-89.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.