Haddock v. State
| Decision Date | 09 October 1935 |
| Parties | HADDOCK v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1935.
Error to Circuit Court, Polk County; John U. Bird, Judge.
Robert B. Haddock was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he brings error.
Reversed and new trial awarded.
COUNSEL D. O. Rogers, of Lakeland, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Dewey A. Dye, of Bradenton, for the State.
The plaintiff in error, Robert B. Haddock, was indicted in Polk county, Fla for murder in the first degree. He was tried in Polk county Fla., and found guilty of murder in the second degree, and was sentenced to twenty years in the state prison.
His case is in this court on writ of error.
The plaintiff in error makes ten assignments of error. We do not deem it necessary to consider other than the third assignment.
The third assignment of error is: 'The plaintiff in error contends that the Court erred in its ruling whereby the State was allowed the closing argument to the jury by the State Attorney on the trial of this cause.'
The record discloses that the defendant testified in his own behalf, and that he called no other witnesses or witness. In the progress of the defendant giving his testimony the following took place (quoting from the transcript):
'Mr. Dye: We object to exhibiting the paper to the jury unless it is in evidence.
'Mr. Rogers: I will offer it in evidence.
At the conclusion of the defendant's testimony the state and the defendant both announced that they rested. Whereupon the following took place:
'The State Attorney then announced that inasmuch as the defendant had introduced a certain map or drawing portraying the scene of the shooting in this case, the relative positions of the parties, and the position of the automobile and the scene of the tragedy, which said drawing was evidence other than the testimony of the defendant; and that the defendant had lost the closing argument before the jury.
'The Court announced that he was familiar with the rule announced in the Crosby Case [90 Fla. 381, 106 So. 741] and requested that said case be brought before the Court for study, and when the said case was brought into Court, the Court offered same to counsel for the defendant, who, at that time stated that he was familiar with the rule that if the defendant offered any testimony other than the defendant's own testimony, that he had lost the closing argument, and thereupon, he further stated that he thought the Court was right in his statement of the law and it might be that defendant had lost the closing argument.
'To which ruling of the Court, the defendant did, then and there, except.'
The record discloses that the state attorney was allowed to make the opening and closing argument before the jury.
The court later, in his order overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, recites:
'I further certify and recite in the record that at the closing of the testimony by the defendant after the Defendant had rested, the State announced that it rested and thereupon Honorable Dewey A. Dye suggested to the Court that inasmuch as the defendant had introduced a certain map, or drawing portraying the scene of the shooting in this case, the relative positions of the parties, and the position of the automobile and the scene of the tragedy, which said drawing was evidence other than testimony of the defendant; and that said defendant had lost the closing argument before the jury, and the Court announced that he was familiar with the rule announced in the Crosby Case reported in 106 So. [741] and requested that said case be brought before the Court for study, and when said case was brought into Court the Court offered same to counsel for the defendant, who at the time stated that he was familiar with the rule that if the defendant offered any evidence other than the defendant's testimony, that he lost the closing argument and thereupon stated that he thought the Court was right in his position that the defendant had lost the closing argument; whereupon the State's Attorney made the opening argument before the jury and the defendant answered, and the State's Attorney closed the argument before the jury, and no further request was made for argument by the defendant.'
At the conclusion of the testimony, after both the state and the defendant had rested, the question as to whether the state or the defendant should have the closing argument to the jury was definitely put to the court. The court undoubtedly ruled that the state should have the closing argument, to which ruling the defendant did then and there except.
Section 8386, Compiled General Laws 1927 (section 6081, Rev. Gen. St.), provides: 'In all criminal cases where the defendant offers no testimony in his own behalf, except his own, the attorney or attorneys for the defendant shall have the closing argument.'
The trial court, in ruling upon this question, invoked the ruling of the Supreme Court in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Haddock v. State
- Haddock v. State
-
Talley v. State
...arguments to the jury under the provisions of Section 918.09, F.S.A.; Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381, 106 So. 741, and Haddock v. State, 121 Fla. 167, 163 So. 482. have studied the record and re-examined the authorities cited in light of the contention made. It is true that the defendant belo......
-
Faulk v. State
...So.2d 201, and Kennedy v. State, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 4. Despite the holdings in the last three cited cases it was held in Haddock v. State, 121 Fla. 167, 163 So. 482, that an accused who testifies and in the course of his testimony prepares a diagram of a location to explain his testimony an......