Collins v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1944 |
| Citation | 19 So.2d 718,155 Fla. 141 |
| Parties | COLLINS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1944.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Jos. S White, judge.
W. H Mizell, of West Palm Beach, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and John C. Wynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, having been indicted and convicted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County for the crime of murder in the first degree presents his appeal to this Court.
Appellant presents five question for our consideration as grounds for reversal.
The first question challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. We have carefully considered the evidence as reflected in the transcript of record and find it amply sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. A statement of the details of the occurrence as shown by the evidence can serve no useful purpose. It is sufficient to say that the evidence when measured by rules enunciated in the cases of Crawford v. State, 146 Fla. 729, 1 So.2d 713; Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42, 163 So. 291; Hasty v. State, 120 Fla. 269, 162 So. 910; Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798, 190 So. 259 and Williams v State, 148 Fla. 88, 3 So.2d 721, meets all requirements.
The second and third questions challenge the action of the trial court in refusing to give certain requested instructions or charges requested by the defendant touching the law of self-defense. The trial court announced that the giving of such requested charges was refused because the legal principles thereby sought to be included in charges to the jury were covered by the court's general charge as given. The record reflects that this was true and, therefore, the refusal was not error. See Harvey v. State, 129 Fla. 289, 176 So. 439; Jarrell v. State, 135 Fla. 736, 185 So. 873, and White v. State, 129 Fla. 885, 176 So. 842.
The fourth and fifth questions challenge the propriety of the cross-examination of defendant by the State's Attorney (when the defendant was testifying on the trial as a witness in his own behalf) as to former convictions of defendant. From careful consideration of the record, we do not find that the course pursued by the State's Attorney offends against the enunciations by us in the case of Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 519, 98 So. 603, or in Martin v State, 86 Fla. 616, 98 So. 827. In the case before us the State's Attorney did not seek to have the witness state the facts or circumstances of any offense of which he had been convicted; neither did he attempt to show that defendant had been convicted of any offense involving personal violence. The examination sought to elicit information as to the number of times, if any, the witness has been convicted. The defendant requested no charge by the trial court in regard to the effect, if any, to be given such evidence and, therefore, cannot be heard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Greenberg v. Post
-
Morton v. State
...convictions in the plural sense. Mead v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 773; Lockwood v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 770; Collins v. State, 1944, 155 Fla. 141, 19 So.2d 718; Williams v. United States, 5 C.A.Fla.1931, 46 F.2d 731, and Whalen v. United States, 5 C.A.Fla.1966, 367 F.2d We quote ......
-
Watts v. State
... ... improper purpose and to secure for the state an advantage ... which it does not desire." We do not overlook our ... holdings in ... [34 So.2d 432.] ... Wilson v. State, 134 Fla. 199, 183 So. 748; Madison v ... State, 138 Fla. 467, 189 So. 832; Collins v ... State, 155 Fla. 141, 19 So.2d 718 ... Counsel for ... appellant contends that the evidence adduced is legally ... insufficient to sustain a conviction of the appellant [160 ... Fla. 273] under count two of the information. We have ... repeatedly held that disputes and conflicts ... ...
-
Lockwood v. State, 762
...prior conviction, ask how many times defendant has been convicted. Watts v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 268, 34 So.2d 429; Collins v. State, 1944, 155 Fla. 141, 19 So.2d 718. One incident occurred during State's presentation under Section 90.08, supra, that warrants comment if only to emphasize t......