Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1924 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.
Norman Anderson was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Permitting leading questions discretionary; discretion in permitting or denying leading questions not reviewable. The trial court may permit leading questions to be propounded to witnesses, and the exercise of this discretion is not reviewable on writ of error by an appellate court.
Conviction sustained by ample legal evidence not disturbed. Where the legal evidence contained in the record is ample to sustain the verdict, a judgment of conviction will not be disturbed by an appellate court.
E. L. Bryan, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and J. B. Gaines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error, Norman Anderson, was charged by indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree. He was found guilty of murder in the second degree. To review the judgment imposing sentence, writ of error was taken from this court.
The first question is presented by four assignments of error. All of them are upon rulings of the trial court overruling objections to questions, propounded by the state attorney to witnesses, upon the ground that they were leading. It is within the judicial discretion of the trial court to permit leading questions to be propounded to witnesses, and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable on writ of error by an appellate court. Stinson v State, 76 Fla. 421, 80 So. 506; Padgett v State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 So. 946, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 897; Penton v. State, 64 Fla. 411, 60 So. 343; Johnson v. State, 64 Fla. 321, 59 So. 894; Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12, 50 So. 537; Falk v Kimmerle, 57 Fla. 70, 49 So. 504, 17 Ann. Cas. 839. The conduct of the examination of the witnesses, made the basis of assignments, was not such as to warrant a holding that there was an abuse of the discretion reposed in the trial court in overruling objections to questions upon the ground that they were leading. They seem to have been little, if any, more than were necessary to elicit from reluctant witnesses facts within their knowledge.
The second question is the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. This is presented by a ruling denying a motion for new trial upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. State
...refuse to review such exercise of discretion.' Further dealing with this question, the Attorney General cites the case of Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202, wherein this court 'The first question is presented by four assignments of error. All of them are upon rulings of the trial c......
-
Begley v. State
...of the trial judge. Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702, 6 So. 768 (1889). See also McCloud v. State, 335 So.2d 257 (Fla.1976); Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924); Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 So. 946 (1912). We also find no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in this POIN......
-
McCloud v. State
...1968). Here, however, the only issue was whether to permit leading questions to be asked of an uncooperative witness.7 Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924).8 Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 310, 165 So. 44 (1935).9 See Robinson v. State, 161 So.2d 578 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); Connley v. Uni......
-
Leading Questions
...(Fla. 1st Dist., 1971). Permission to use leading questions has always been within the discretion of the trial judge. Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924). The courts have upheld the use of leading questions for one’s own witness when the witness was young and “very ignorant.” ......
-
Leading Questions
...(Fla. 1st Dist., 1971). Permission to use leading questions has always been within the discretion of the trial judge. Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924). The courts have upheld the use of leading questions for one’s own witness when the witness was young and “very ignorant.” ......
-
Leading Questions
...(Fla. 1st Dist., 1971). Permission to use leading questions has always been within the discretion of the trial judge. Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924). The courts have upheld the use of leading questions for one’s own witness when the witness was young and “very ignorant.” ......
-
Leading questions
...(Fla. 1st Dist., 1971). Permission to use leading questions has always been within the discretion of the trial judge. Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924). The courts have upheld the use of leading questions for one’s own witness when the witness was young and “very ignorant.” ......