The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1891-08-29

HeadnOtes to Decisions, June Term,
1891.

l. T. Garner, Plaintiff in Error, VS. The
State of Florida, Defendant in Error
6uwannee county.
RANEY, G. j.:
1. An exception to ruling denying a
motion for continuance is not waived by
not making the ruling a ground of mo-
tiOn for new trial
| 2. A motion for a continuance rests in
the sound discretion Of the trial court.
Where motion Of this characteristics
one being on the ground that the counsel
of the accused was too sick to conduct
the defense properly-has been refused
and it does not appear that there was an
abuse of a sound discretion in refusing it,
the appellate court will not interfere.
8. When the admissibility of threats is
dependent upon the commission of an
overt act by the deceased, there must be
some evidence of the overt act; or, in
other words, there must be evidence
| which at least tends to show that the de-
ceased had, at the time of the killing, in
fact or apparently sought a conflict with
the accused, or was actually or apparent
ly making some demonstration Of attack
towards the accomplishment Of his
threats, or some demonstration reason
ably calculated to induce the belief that
the execution of the threatened attack
had actually commenced. There must be
at least apparently such demonstration
of an intention 10 execute Immediately
the threats as will naturally induce rea-
SOnable belief that the party threatened
will lose his life or suffer serious bodily
harm if he does not Immediately take the
life of his adversary.
4. Threats admissible in connection
with an overt act are so admissible be-
cause they serve to explain the demon
stration or overt act and to show the rea-
sonableness of the accused in believing
himself to be in that danger which justi-
fies the taking Of human life in self de-
fense.
5. The question of admissibility of evil
dence of threats is one for the courts de-
cision. If there is the slightest evidence
tending to prove hostile demonstration
which may reasonably be regarded as
placing the accused apparently in immi-
nent danger of losing his life or sustain
| ing great bodily harm, evidence of the
| threats should be admitted. 1t should
| be admitted also where the mind of the
court is ia a state of doubt whether or
not the alleged demonstration, considered
in connection with the threats, would be
sufficient to cause person OF ordinary
prudence to reasonably believe himself to
be in danger of lie or great bodily harm.
They should not be excluded except
where there is no evidence tending to
prove a hostile demonstration of the
character indicated above.
6. The weight of evidence OF threats,
considered in connection with that as to
| 10 hot oc
bility oil the witnesses testifying as to such
act or threats, question for the jury. 1t
| is for the Jury, after considering all the tes-
timony relating to the circumstances OF the
homicide, to decide whether or not there
was reasonable ground for a person OF or
dinarv prudence to believe himself to be in
imminent danger of losing his life or of
sustaining great bodily harm at the hands
of the deceased If he did not kill him.
Z. Evidence of the violent and danger
Gus character Of the deceased is admissible
| 10 show, or as tending to show, that de-
fendant has acted in self defense; or, in
other words, under such circumstances as
would naturally cause man ordinary
reason to believe himself TO he at the time
of the killing, in imminent danger OF losing
his life, or of suffering great bodily harm,
at the hands of the deceased; but such evil
dence is not admissible tor this purp sc ex-
cept when it explains, or will give mean
| ing, significance or point, to the conduct oil
the deceased at the time of the killing, OF
will tend 10 do 80; and such conduct OF !ne
deceased at the time of the killing, which
il ia proposed to thus explain, must be
shown before the auxiliary evidence of such
character can be introduced. There must
he evidence of some demonstration on the
part of the accused, which, though consld-
cred independent of the dangerous charac-
| ter of the deceased it would be regarded as
| innocent or harmless, when received and
considered in connection with or illustrA-
| ted bv such character may arouse reason
able belief of imminent peril OF the kind
mentioned.
| Where there is no evidence tending
10 show that the killing was IN self-deiense,
or tending to show conduct upon the part
of the deceased from which, even assuming
that he was violent and dangerous man,
anv inference can be reasonably drawn
that he intended the immediate perpetra
ton of an act imminently dangerous to the
life of the accused, or of serious bodily
harm to him, evidence OF violent and dan
gerous character of the deceased IS mad
missible. In such cases there is no con-
duct 10 be illustrated or explained by a vlo-
lent and dangerous CnaCaCtcI. II, no"
ever, there is evidence OF any demonstra-
ton upon the part of the deceased at the
killing, which his dangerous character
would reasonably and naturally aid, ex'
plain or give point or significance to as
tending to make out case OF self-detense
on the part of the accused, evidence OF such
character should be admitted. Its admls-
sibility is not confined 10 cases In which
there 10 doubt of the guilt of the accused,
or of the degree of the homicide, or that
the killing was in self-defense.
8. The question of the admissibility OF
evidence OF q violent and dangerous char.
acter is for the court to decide. The weight
of such evidence, when admitted, is mat
ter for the consideration of the jury, In
connection with all the testimony as to the
homicide.
10. The fact that there is testimony In
conflict with that tending to show an overt
act is not ground for excluding evidence
or threats or of violent and dangerous char
acter.
| II. Proof Of the violent and dangerous
T. Ans 10 h.