Dickens v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1905 |
| Parties | DICKENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Charles B. Parkhill, Judge.
Joe Dickens was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. An indictment should not be quashed on account of any defect in the form thereof, unless the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment is so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead the accused, and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense, or expose him, after conviction or acquittal, to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.
2. This court cannot consider any grounds of objections to the admissibility of evidence, except such as were made in the court below; the plaintiff in error being confined to the specific grounds of objection made by him in the trial court.
3. Where a question to a witness is not improper in itself, and does not necessarily call for any illegal or improper evidence, an objection to such question should be overruled.
4. Where an answer to a question presents evidence which is illegal or objectionable on any known ground, the proper practice is a motion to strike it out, and have the jury directed not to consider it, the movant specifying his objections to the evidence with like particularity as in objecting to questions.
5. While trial judges should not permit private conversations with them in reference to any question or issue arising in the trial of any criminal cause before them by the prosecuting attorney or any one else, yet when such conversation relates solely to a request for a temporary adjournment it is not sufficient ground for reversal.
6. Hearsay testimony is properly stricken out on motion.
7. Where there is evidence to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed or set aside by an appellate court, as being against the evidence, where its propriety depends entirely upon the credibility of conflicting witnesses.
COUNSEL C. L. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
At the spring term, 1904, of the circuit court for Jackson county the plaintiff in error, Joe Dickens (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), was indicted for murder in the first degree, and was tried at the same term, which trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to the mercy of the court, and the defendant was sentenced to the state prison for life. From this judgment and sentence the defendant seeks relief here by writ of error.
The first error assigned is based upon the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment. The ground of this motion was that the indictment 'is vague, indefinite and uncertain and insufficient.' The argument made here to support this assignment is that the indictment does not sufficiently allege that 'the wounds were inflicted from a premeditated design to effect death,' and Simmons v State, 32 Fla. 387, 13 So. 896, is cited to support this contention. We fail to find any proper basis for this assignment in the record, and are of the opinion that the record does not sustain the defendant's contention. We deem it unnecessary to set forth the indictment. Suffice it to say that we have given it a careful examination, and are of the opinion that it is sufficient to withstand the assault made upon it, and that it complies with the requirements laid down in Simmons v. State, supra. It is true that the word 'body' is omitted in one place therein, and it may be that the English is bad, but this is not sufficient to vitiate the indictment. Wharton's Crim. Pl. & Pr. (8th Ed.) § 273. The indictment was not 'so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead the accused, and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense, or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.' Section 2893, Rev. St. 1892; Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669; Tuberson v. State, 26 Fla. 472, 7 So. 858. The omitted word was evidently the result of a clerical mistake. State v. Shaw, 58 N.H. 74.
The second assignment is as follows: '(2) Because the court erred in permitting the witness, J. A. Finlayson, over defendant's objection, to testify that he measured the tracks and then measured the foot of this defendant, and that the measurements compared exactly in size.'
The record shows that Charley Ely, with whose murder the defendant was charged. came to his death on or about the 24th day of July, 1896; that on the next morning J. A. Finlayson, who was then the sheriff of Jackson county, went out to the place where the tragedy occurred, and found certain tracks or footprints in the vicinity, which he proceeded to measure with a stick. The bill of exceptions discloses the following state of facts in connection with this assignment:
The witness then proceeded to give his testimony concerning the measurement and comparison of the tracks and the defendant's shoe, which we deem unnecessary to set forth in detail. No motion was made to strike out this testimony, or any part of it, until the witness was turned over to the defendant for cross-examination, when, after a number of questions had been answered by the witness, the following motion was made: Before any ruling was made upon this motion, the state propounded the following question: 'Where is that stick or measure that you speak of using when measuring the shoe?' To this question the witness replied:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...say that the question was a preliminary one, and therefore not open to objection. Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 So. 611; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Crosby, 53 400, text 444, 43 So. 318, text 331; Golden v. State, 54 Fla. 43, 44 South. 948; G......
-
Pittman v. State
...it with the forged instrument, or for any other cause, he could have moved at any time after the admission to strike it out. Dickens v. State, (Fla.) 38 So. 909; Caldwell State (Fla.) 39 So. 188. However, no such motion was made, and, in our opinion, other evidence was introduced connecting......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby
...one, and was not improper in itself, and for that reason was not objectionable. Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 So. 611; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909. However, no such point is made before us. Both parties treated it as though the question called for the declaration made by Mrs.......
-
Carnley v. Cochran, 158
...518; Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 So. 749; Sims v. State, supra. Yet a motion to strike may achieve the same result. Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909. In a rapid-fire exchange of questions and answers by the prosecution and a witness, a defendant without the assistance of coun......