Chesser v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1923 |
| Citation | 95 So. 610,85 Fla. 151 |
| Parties | CHESSER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, St. Johns County; George Couper Gibbs Judge.
William O. Chasser was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Technical error in reception or rejection of evidence not necessarily harmful; injury resulting from error warrants reversal of judgment. Technical error committed by a trial court in the reception or rejection of evidence does not necessarily constitute harmful error. It is injury resulting from error that warrants an appellate court in reversing a judgment of the trial court.
Judgment not reversed for technical errors, where conviction warranted on testimony of accused. Where the accused becomes a witness in his own behalf, and from his own statement a verdict against him is justified, a judgment of conviction will not be reversed, even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence.
E. Noble Calhoun, of St. Augustine, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree, plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree. To review the judgment imposing sentence, writ of error was taken from this court.
Assignments of error question the propriety of rulings of the court below, made during the progress of the trial, excluding or admitting evidence, but the view we take of the case renders it unnecessary to discuss these assignments. The evidence excluded, accepting the theory of the defense, went only to the question of the credibility of certain state witnesses while the evidence admitted over objections of defendant went to the question of the reputation of the deceased. Even if technically erroneous, it is clear, considering the entire case, that there is harmful error in none of these rulings and the rule is well established in this jurisdiction that it is injury resulting from error, not error alone, that warrants an appellate court in reversing a judgment of conviction upon an indictment for crime. Section 2812, Rev. Gen. Stat.
The ruling denying the motion of defendant for new trial is assigned as error. This motion presents the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fenner v. Commonwealth
...of evidence, where the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the" accused "have been infringed. Chesser v. State, 85 Fla. 151, 95 So. 610; Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273. We fully appreciate the extreme delicacy of duty involved in a pronouncement by an appella......
-
Fenner v. Commonwealth
... ... , but the better doctrine seems to be that it is not a defense in the accurate meaning of the term, but a mere fact shown in rebuttal of the State's evidence; and consequently, the evidence introduced to support it should be left to the jury, uninfluenced by any charge from the court tending to ... Chesser State, ... Page 1029 ... 85 Fla. 151, 95 So. 610; Linsley State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273. We fully appreciate the extreme delicacy of duty ... ...
-
Butler v. State
... ... trial court. A judgment of conviction will not ordinarily be ... reversed, even if techincal errors were committed in rulings ... on the admissibility of evidence, where the evidence of guilt ... is ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant have ... infringed. Chesser v. State, 85 Fla. 151, 95 So ... 610; Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273. We ... fully appreciate the extreme delicacy of duty involved in a ... pronouncement by an appellate court that testimony, the ... admission of which might be technical error, was nevertheless ... not harmful or ... ...
-
Urga v. State
...to the same general principle in criminal cases include Smith v. State, 1937, 129 Fla. 388, 176 So. 506, 508; and Chesser v. State, 1923, 85 Fla. 151, 95 So. 610, where the testimony of the accused was held sufficient to sustain his conviction notwithstanding the admission of incompetent ev......