Adams v. State
| Decision Date | 11 December 1907 |
| Citation | 54 Fla. 1,45 So. 494 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Walton County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.
Emma Adams was convicted of murder, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
A proper predicate for the impeachment of a witness is necessary, and, where an important state's witness was asked a question on cross-examination which properly laid the foundation for impeachment, it is erroneous not to permit the defendant to impeach such witness by showing he had made a contradictory statement.
The general rule is that the answer on the cross-examination of a witness respecting any fact irrelevant to the issue is conclusive and cannot be made the basis of impeachment.
It is improper for a prosecuting officer to state to the jury his personal opinion as to the guilt of a defendant, irrespective of the evidence in the case; but it is competent for him to argue the defendant's guilt from the evidence, to show that the evidence produces conviction on him and should convince them.
COUNSEL Price & Watson and S. K. Gillis, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Emma Adams, the plaintiff in error, was indicted at the spring term, 1907, of the circuit court of Walton county, for the murder of one Luvenia Glenn on the 18th of August, 1906. She was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree, with a recommendation to mercy, and sentenced to the state prison for life. She seeks to reverse the judgment on writ of error.
The first assignment of error is predicated upon the refusal of the trial judge to permit the defendant to propound to Cora Bostwick, a witness for defendant, the following question 'State whether or not in that conversation the witness Bias Bryant made any statement to you as to where he was when the shooting took place.'
Bias Bryant was a very important witness for the state, who had testified that he was present when Emma Adams shot Luvenia Glenn. The brief of the plaintiff in error does not indicate where a predicate may be found in the record for the impeachment of Bias Bryant by this witness, and we have not been able to find any. Such a predicate is necessary.
The second assignment is based on the refusal of the court to permit the defendant to propound the following question to R M. Kelley, one of her witnesses, viz.: 'State whether or not in that Shuman conversation, the witness Bias Bryant told you where he was when the shooting occurred.' The record shows that Bias Bryant stated in chief that he was present when the shooting took place in which Luvenia was killed by the defendant. He was asked on cross-examination about an alleged conversation with Mr. Kelley. The record shows the following: The record also shows that when Mr. Kelley was being examined in chief as the defendant's witness the following question was put to him: 'State whether or not in the Shuman conversation Ruis (Bias) told you where he was when the shooting took place'-the defendant's attorney stating that he expected to prove by this witness that Ruis (Bias) told the witness that he was at his house when the shooting took place, and was not present. This question was objected to by the state attorney and objection was sustained, and the defendant excepted to the ruling.
Bias Bryant, who is sometimes mentioned in the record as 'Ruis,' was, as before stated, the only state's witness who claimed to be present when the shooting occurred and his testimony was very damaging to the defendant. He had testified that just before the shooting he was at his house, which was from 50 to 75 yards from Luvenia's house, in which the latter was shot and killed, according to his testimony, by the defendant. It was, therefore, very material for the defendant to show by Kelley, if she could do so, that Bias had stated to him that he was at his own house, and not at Luvenia's, when the shooting took place. If he made such a statement to Mr. Kelley, and the latter had so testified, it would have tended to impeach the testimony of Bias, and we are unable to say what effect if would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickels v. State
...such explanation thereof as he may desire. Brown v. State, 46 Fla. 159, 35 So. 82; Alford v. State, 47 Fla. 1, 36 So. 436; Adams v. State, 54 Fla. 1, 45 So. 494; Bennett v. State, 66 Fla. 369, 63 So. Hoover v. State, 91 Ohio St. 41, 109 N.E. 626; Grant v. United States, 28 App. D. C. 169; P......
-
Childers v. State
...Grant v. State, 171 So.2d 361, 365 (Fla.1965); Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 394, 100 So. 254, 255 (Fla.1924); Adams v. State, 54 Fla. 1, 45 So. 494 (Fla.1907); Cartwright v. State, 885 So.2d 1010, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Keyes v. State, 804 So.2d 373, 375-376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Lavin v.......
-
Childers v. State
...Grant v. State, 171 So.2d 361, 365 (Fla.1965); Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 394, 100 So. 254, 255 (Fla.1924); Adams v. State, 54 Fla. 1, 45 So. 494 (Fla.1907); Cartwright v. State, 885 So.2d 1010, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Keyes v. State, 804 So.2d 373, 375-376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Lavin v.......
-
State v. Pisano
...evidence? There are cases holding this is not improper. People v. Weber, 149 Cal. 325, 86 P. 671, 677 (Sup.Ct.1906); Adams v. State, 54 Fla. 1, 45 So. 494 (Sup.Ct.1907); People v. Pargone, 327 Ill. 463, 158 N.E. 716, 719 (Sup.Ct.1927); Apple v. State, 190 Md. 661, 59 A.2d 509, 511 (Ct.App.1......