Fields v. State

Decision Date27 October 1903
Citation46 Fla. 84,35 So. 185
PartiesFIELDS et al. v. STATE.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Circuit Court, Calhoun County; John W. Malone, Judge.

William H. Fields and Charles Robinson were convicted of aggravated assault, and bring error. Reversed as to Fields and dismissed as to Robinson.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Where a writ of error is sued out jointly by two defendants but only one of said defendants assigns errors in this court the proceedings in error, so far as the defendant who fails to assign errors is concerned, will be treated as abandoned.

2. It is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court to control the detailed examination of witnesses, and, unless an abuse of this judicial discretion is shown to the appellate court, it will not disturb or reverse the ruling.

3. A defendant in a criminal case cannot cross-examine a state witness about matters as to which he has not testified in his direct examination.

4. A witness cannot be cross-examined as to any fact which is collateral or irrelevant to the issue, merely for the purpose of contradicting him by other evidence if he should deny it thereby to discredit his testimony.

5. For the purpose of discrediting a witness a wide range of cross-examination is permitted as a matter of right in regard to his motives, interest, or animus as connected with the cause or the parties thereto, upon which matters he may be contradicted by other evidence.

6. Evidence of declarations or acts of a defendant, prior to the commission of a crime by him, in his own favor or interest falling within the class designated as 'self-serving declarations and acts,' and forming no part of the res gestae, is not admissible.

7. Threats are admissible when they are part of the res gestae, or when there is any doubt as to who began the difficulty; and it is not material in either of these cases that they should have been previously conveyed to the defendant.

8. The physical or mental condition or appearance of a person, or his manner, habit, or conduct, may be proved by the opinion of an ordinary witness, founded on observation.

9. Where part of a conversation is given in evidence, the defendant is entitled to have before the jury all that was said upon the subject upon the particular occasion, whether prejudicial or beneficial to him. The whole conversation should be given.

10. A motion to strike out the entire testimony of a witness should be denied if any part of said testimony is admissible for any purpose.

COUNSEL Benj. S. Liddon, for plaintiff in error.

J. B. Whitfield, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD, J.

The plaintiff in error, William H. Fields, was indicted for an assault with intent to murder, and in the same indictment one Charles Robinson was charged with being accessory thereto said indictment being found at the fall term, 1902, of the circuit court for Calhoun county. A trial was had at the spring term, 1903, of said court, which said trial resulted in both of said defendants being convicted of an aggravated assault, and a fine of $500 and the costs of prosecution was imposed upon the plaintiff in error, or, in default of the payment thereof, he was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of said county for the term of 12 months; and a fine of $250 and costs was imposed upon the said Charles Robinson, or, in default of the payment thereof, he was sentenced to imprisonment in said county jail for the term of 6 months.

Although the writ of error was sued out jointly by both of the defendants below, yet W. H. Fields alone assigns error here, and seeks a reversal of said judgment and sentence, no errors being assigned on behalf of the said Charles Robinson. This being true, the proceedings in error, in so far as said Robinson is concerned, must be deemed and held to have been abandoned. Whorley v. State, 45 Fla. ----, 33 So. 849.

Thirty-three errors are assigned, all of said errors, however, except the fifteenth, twenty-eighth, and thirty-second, being based upon the sustaining of objections to certain questions to witnesses propounded on behalf of the defendants. The fifteenth error assigned is not argued here, and hence must be treated as abandoned. Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. ----, 34 So. 287, and authorities there cited; McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. ----, 35 So. 72.

The first and second errors are argued together, and we shall so treat them. They are based upon objections being sustained to the following questions which were propounded by defendants to J. F. Richards, the prosecuting witness, upon whom the alleged assault was made: 'Who saw you here in Blountstown at the time you walked here and brought a gun previous to the time of the shooting?' 'What was the man's name whose bond you came to Blountstown to sign?' These questions were objected to by the state on the ground that they were irrelevant and immaterial, and said objections were sustained. It does not appear from the record that the court was informed by counsel for defendants of any material bearing these questions had, or would be shown to have, upon the case. It was not shown to the court that the object of said questions was to affect the credibility of the witness. We fail to see what relevant or material bearing they had on the case at the time they were asked, and we are of the opinion that they were properly excluded. As was said in Mathis v. State, supra: 'It is within the sound judicial discretion of the court to control the detailed examination of witnesses, and, unless an abuse of this judicial discretion is shown to the appellate court, it will not disturb or reverse the ruling.' Also, see the authorities there cited, and, in addition, Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713; Stewart v. State, 42 Fla. 591, 28 So. 815. No error is shown here.

The third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth assignments of error all relate to the sustaining of objections by the court to questions propounded by counsel for defendants on cross-examination to the prosecuting witness, the grounds of said objections being that said questions were irrelevant and immaterial, or (fifth assignment) vague and general, and not in cross. We do not deem it necessary to set forth these questions in detail, but suffice it to state that we have carefully examined each and every of them, and fail to see wherein any error was committed in sustaining the objections thereto. The questions were not proper on cross-examination, and, so far as was disclosed at the time they were asked, were immaterial and irrelevant. The authorities already cited in disposing of the first and second assignments are in point here also. See Thalheim v. State, 38 Fla. 169, 20 So. 938, to the effect that 'a defendant in a criminal case cannot cross-examine a state witness about matters as to which he had not testified in his direct examination.'

The following question was propounded by counsel for defendants to said prosecuting witness: 'Did you know at that time when you were in Blountstown in the morning of the day of the difficulty that Graham and Demont were, and had for some time been, angry with the defendant Fields, and were seeking a difficulty on that day?' The state objected to the witness answering said question on the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial, which objection was sustained by the court, and said ruling forms the basis of the fourth error assigned. No error was committed here, as at the time said question was propounded it had not been shown that said Graham and Demont had in any way participated in the difficulty.

The tenth assignment is also predicated upon the refusal of the court to permit a certain question to be propounded to said prosecuting witness, sustaining the objection interposed by the state on the ground that said question was immaterial and irrelevant. Said question was not in cross of anything testified to by said witness on his direct examination, and was wholly immaterial to the issue being tried, inquiring of witness if he had not stated after the difficulty, when he was sick in bed with the wound, that when Fields and Robinson came in sight of witness on the road where the difficulty was committed witness, Graham, and Demont were standing in the road talking. In addition to the authorities already cited, see Eldridge v. State, 27 Fla. 162, 9 So. 448, to the effect that 'a witness cannot be cross-examined as to any fact which is collateral or irrelevant to the issue, merely for the purpose of contradicting him by other evidence if he should deny it, thereby to discredit his testimony.'

The eleventh assignment of error is based upon the refusal of the court to permit the following question to be propounded to said prosecuting witness: 'Did you not, in the conversation which you have just testified about that you had with Robinson at your house in reference to Fields, in reply to a suggestion from Robinson that you should let the matter drop, and settle the difficulty, say that you did not intend to let it drop?'

The witness has previously testified on cross-examination that some time before the difficulty occurred a conversation had taken place between witness and defendant Robinson, at the house of witness, but there had been no testimony as to where that conversation took place, or that it was at a time sufficiently proximate to the difficulty to make it material, or that it related to the particular difficulty out of which the prosecution arose. The state objected to said question on the ground that same was irrelevant and immaterial, and no predicate had been laid for testing the knowledge of the witness. No error was committed here. The authorities already cited are in point.

The twelfth error assigned is as follows:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • White v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1910
    ...reference to.' This is all that such witness testified to concerning that conversation. I fully approve of our holding in Fields v. State, 46 Fla. 84, 35 So. 185, which the defendant relies, that: 'Where part of a conversation is given in evidence the defendant is entitled to have before th......
  • Pittman v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1906
    ...v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 So. 1022; Squires v. State, 42 Fla. 251, 27 So. 864; Stewart v. State, 42 Fla. 591, 28 So. 815; Fields v. State, 46 Fla. 84, 35 So. 185. As was in Eldridge v. State, 27 Fla. 162, 9 So. 448: 'The motives, interest, or animus of a witness are not collateral matters, ......
  • Hoodless v. Jernigan
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1903
    ... ... by the Court ... SYLLABUS ... 1. A ... party who objects to evidence or the competency of witnesses ... should state specifically the grounds of his objections, in ... order to apprise the court and his adversary of the precise ... objection he intends to make ... answer. Higginbotham v. State, 42 Fla. 573, 29 So ... 410, 89 Am. St. Rep. 237; Johns v. State, 46 Fla ... ----, 35 So. 71; Fields v. State, 46 Fla. ----, 35 ... So. 185. This being true, we are of the opinion that where a ... document is offered in its entirety, as was the ... ...
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1907
    ...merely for the purpose of contradicting him by other evidence if he should deny it, thereby to discredit his testimony. Fields v. State, 46 Fla. 84, 35 So. 185, authorities therein cited. It is also well settled here, as we saw in considering the second assignment, that the evidence adduced......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT