Golden v. State
| Decision Date | 05 November 1907 |
| Citation | 44 So. 948,54 Fla. 43 |
| Parties | GOLDEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Holmes County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.
Jack Golden was convicted of murder in the second degree, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
A preliminary question is not objectionable, although further evidence may be necessary to render admissible the testimony sought ultimately to be elicited.
To avoid improper testimony given in answer to a proper question, there should be a motion to strike.
COUNSEL Price & Watson, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Jack Golden, indicted in the circuit court for Holmes county for the murder of Will James, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Upon his writ of error he relies for reversal upon the overruling of an objection interposed for him at the trial.
The state offered as its witness in rebuttal of testimony by one Gus Tanner for the defense, a juror at the coroner's inquest, and asked him: 'Do you recollect where Gus Tanner testified he was standing at the time this occurred?' Before the question was answered, the defense brought out the fact that the coroner took the testimony down in writing, and that it was signed by Tanner, and then objected to the question on the ground that such writing was the best evidence. The objection was overruled, and the witness answered that he did remember, and further gave his recollection of that testimony. No motion was made to strike the answer in whole or in part, and it is evident that the question, a preliminary one, was of itself wholly innocuous. Should we grant the contention of the plaintiff in error that the 'best evidence' rule obtains under these circumstances, it is apparent the state was not called upon the make any further showing at the time until it first ascertained that the witness' memory was such as to be of assistance, should the difficulty be overcome. Mere preliminary questions ordinarily cannot be objected to. Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909; Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 So. 611.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...text 331; Golden v. State, 54 Fla. 43, 44 South. 948; Gainesville & Gulf R. R. Co. v. Peck, 55 Fla. 402, 46 So. 1019. The case of Golden v. State, supra, will found to be especially in point. The twenty-first assignment must also fall for like reasons, being based upon the sustaining of an ......
-
Kersey v. State
... ... This ... question was a mere preliminary question, and, under the ... repeated rulings of this court, was not open to objection ... Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 So. 611; Dickens ... v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909; Golden v ... State, 54 Fla. 43, 44 So. 948. No motion was made to ... strike out the answer. As we held in Ortiz v. State, supra: ... 'Where ... a question to a witness is not improper in itself, but the ... answer presents evidence which is illegal or objectionable on ... any known ... ...
-
Rentz v. Live Oak Bank
... ... P. Rentz, J. C. Little, C. B. Stillwell, C.J ... McGehee, William Le Fils, Rentz-Little & Co., a corporation ... under the laws of the state of Florida, as surviving partners ... of the late firm of E. P. Rentz, J. C. Little, C. B ... Stillwell, C.J. McGehee, William Le Fils, Rentz, ... 611; ... Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909; ... Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby, 53 Fla. 400, ... 444, 43 So. 318, 331; Golden v. State, 54 Fla. 43, ... 44 So. 948; East Coast Lumber Co. v. Ellis-Young ... Co., 55 Fla. 256, 45 So. 826; Gainesville & Gulf R ... R. Co ... ...
-
Ward v. State
... ... This was the witness' opinion apparently, [75 Fla. 770] ... but the defendant should have moved to strike it. See ... Mann v. State, 23 Fla. 610, 3 So. 207; Ortiz v ... State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 So. 611; Putnal v ... State, 56 Fla. 86, 47 So. 864; Golden v. State, ... 54 Fla. 43, 44 So. 948. Failing to do so, for aught that is ... shown here he abandoned his objection. See Ortiz v. State, ... The ... answer to the question which is made the basis of the ... eighteenth assignment was harmless. The witness said she did ... not hear ... ...