Harmon v. State

• Decision Date: 13 October 1904
• Citation: Harmon v. State, 48 Fla. 44, 37 So. 520 (Fla. 1904)
• Parties: HARMON v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

37 So. 520

48 Fla. 44

HARMON v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

October 13, 1904

Error to Circuit Court, Washington County; Lucius J. Reeves, Judge.

Andy Harmon was convicted of assault, and brings error.Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1.Under an indictment covering the various degrees of assaults evidence by the state that the assaulted person suffered great pain is not immaterial.

2.It is not error to permit the state to waive the opening argument, it not being made to appear that there was any closing argument on behalf of the state, prejudicial or otherwise.

3.Charges already given by the court need not be repeated at defendant's request.

4.The evidence supported the verdict.

COUNSEL

Edwin R. Blow(W. H. Price, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

COCKRELL J.

Andy Harmon was indicted, tried, and convicted of an assault with intent to murder one H. D. Messer by cutting him with a knife, and was sentenced to the State Prison for a term of five years.

Over an objection as to materiality, the state was permitted to prove that the person assaulted suffered great pain.The indictment covered various degrees of assaults, including aggravated and simple assaults, and it was competent for the state to prove the suffering consequent upon the act.The extent of the pain bears a close relation to the extent of the injury and the violence of the assault, which in turn, is material in showing the intent of the assaulting party.People v Sutherland,104 Mich. 468, 62 N.W. 566.This answers the only objection to evidence raised at the trial.

At the conclusion of the testimony the state attorney announced that he waived the opening argument, and the defendant moved that he be required to state the facts relied upon for conviction whereupon 'the court stated that he would require the state attorney to read any authorities he had to submit, and the state attorney then and there announced that he had no authorities to submit to the court.Thereupon the court overruled the motion, to which action upon the part of the court in refusing said motion the defendant did then and there except.And the said parties having concluded their testimony, and the several matters aforesaid, the judge did then and there give his opinion and deliver his charge to the jury,' etc.It will be observed from the foregoing extract from the bill of exceptions that it does not appear that the state attorney made...