Foy v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1934 |
| Parties | FOY v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Sarasota County; Paul C. Albritton, Judge.
Proceedings by the State against Archie Foy, in which defendant brings error.
Reversed for new trial.
John B. Singeltary, of Bradenton, and Frank Redd, of Sarasota, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Archie Foy, while on trial for the felony of statutory burglary became a witness in his own behalf. While on the stand the court permitted (over appropriate objections by counsel for defendant) the state attorney to interrogate the defendant as follows:
'And you know at this time you are under indictment with respect to both of these breakings and enterings?'
The court also permitted, over objection of defendant's counsel, the state attorney to ask of defendant's witness Clyde Whitted:
'Did you know that the Grand Jury at the present term of Court had returned an indictment against you and Archie Foy (the defendant)?-- and kindred questions of like import, concerning other cases.
It is well settled that the prosecution in a criminal case cannot call witnesses to impeach the character of the defendant, unless the defendant puts it in issue. Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600. Nor can the prosecution accomplish the same forbidden end by indirection through pursuing a method of questioning defendant and his witness on cross-examination that is principally designed, by means of innuendo and suggestions of general criminality on accused's part, to lead the jury to believe that the accused should be found guilty of the particular crime charged, because of his being suspected or accused of other offenses, or because of his connections or associations with other accused persons under indictment for different crimes not constituting a part of the charge on trial.
The record in this case demonstrates such abuse by the state attorney at the trial below of his right of cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses concerning irrelevant matters; that the injury done defendant can only be corrected by a new trial which, in the opinion of a majority of the court, should be now awarded.
Reversed for a new trial.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delhall v. State
...with other accused persons under indictment for different crimes not constituting a part of the charge on trial.Foy v. State, 115 Fla. 245, 155 So. 657, 658 (1934) (citation omitted). In the present case, the prosecutor's question violated the rule laid down in Messer and Foy in that it sug......
-
Robertson v. State
...with other accused persons under indictment for different crimes not constituting part of the charge on trial." Foy v. State, 115 Fla. 245, 155 So. 657 (1934). The prosecutor committed the very error denounced in We have conducted a harmless error analysis in this case and cannot conclude t......
-
Robertson v. State
...decision also misapplies this Court's opinions in Jordan v. State, 107 Fla. 333, 144 So. 669, 669-70 (1932), and Foy v. State, 115 Fla. 245, 155 So. 657, 658 (1934), regarding the permissible scope of impeachment of a testifying defendant. Based on the conflict created by these misapplicati......
-
Thomas v. State
...610, 92 So. 571, which cases, while not strictly in point, throw some light upon the questions here involved. The cases of Foy v. State, 115 Fla. 245, 155 So. 657, and Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600, which are among cases cited by plaintiff in error, are not, in our opinion, strictly in point h......