Bryan v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 1903 |
| Citation | 45 Fla. 8,34 So. 243 |
| Parties | BRYAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; Bascom H. Palmer, Judge.
Henry E. Bryan was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Assault with intent to commit manslaughter is a crime in this state.
2. When a state's witness has proven adverse, and has given testimony injurious to the state, she may be examined as to whether she had not previously made a statement contrary to the present adverse testimony, and, if she denies making it such statement may, after due redicate laid, be proven by other witnesses.
3. Objection to a question as leading cannot be made for the first time in the appellate court. member in good standing of the bar of the
4. A trial court may, in its discretion, permit the introduction of impeaching testimony out of the regular order as to time and such discretion will not be controlled by an appellate court unless an abuse of such discretion appear.
5. Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the verdict.
COUNSEL T. B. Oliver and A. J. Henry, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Under an indictment for as assault with intent to commit murder the defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to commit manslaughter, and sentenced to the state prison for the period of five years.
The first contention is that there is no such offense, common-law or statutory, as that of which he was convicted. Such contention is fully met and overthrown by the decision of this court in the case of Williams v. State, 41 Fla 295, 26 So. 184, and we see no good reason for changing the views of the law as there expressed.
Another assignment challenges the action of the trial court in permitting the state attorney to show that one of the state's witnesses had made a contradictory statement. The state had put upon the stand the defendant's wife, who gave positive testimony in his favor, prejudicial to the state, and therefore adverse to the party calling her. The state attorney testified that he was taken by surprise, and that the witness had on a previous occasion made a different statement to him. The circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion giving the time, place, persons present, and substance of the alleged statement, were mentioned to the witness, and she was asked if she made such statement. On her denial, two of the persons so named as present were called as witnesses by the state, and testified she did make such statement. It further appeared that at the time of the original statement she and her husband were not on good terms. The evidence of these later witnesses cannot be said to be substantive evidence to sustain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogel v. State
...a murder is also a felony. See section 7165, C.G.L.1927. Assault with intent to commit manslaughter is a crime in this state. Bryan v. State, 45 Fla. 8, 34 So. 243; v. State, 53 Fla. 45, 43 So. 779; Feagle v. State, 55 Fla. 13, 46 So. 182. A person guilty of such an offense may be convicted......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...life of the victim of the assault] must be proven to justify conviction of assault with intent to commit manslaughter."); Bryan v. State, 45 Fla. 8, 34 So. 243 (1903); Knight v. State, 44 Fla. 94, 32 So. 110 (1902); McNeal v. Culver, 365 U.S. 109, 81 S.Ct. 413, 5 L.Ed.2d 445 (1961) (discuss......
-
Midland Valley Railroad Co. v. Ennis
...P. 1049; 153 Cal. 652, 96 P. 266; 34 Fla. 185; 15 So. 904; 20 Mont. 574, 52 P. 611; 110 S.W. 1013; 103 S.W. 911; 60 S.W. 881; 45 S.W. 808; 45 Fla. 8; 92 Ark. 237, 122 S.W. 506; 59 Miss. 243; 116 La. 36, 40 524; 111 P. 679, 140 A. St. Rep. 668, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1166. There can be no claim of......
-
Johnson v. State
...this was followed in Hernandez v. State, supra, there are three cases which seem to find a different meaning in 'adverse.' In Bryan v. State, 45 Fla. 8, 34 So. 243, and Sylvester v. State, 46 Fla. 166, 35 So. 142, the Court seems to equate 'adverse' with 'hostile.' In the first of these cas......