Mead v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1956 |
| Citation | 86 So.2d 773 |
| Parties | Ralph MEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Martin & Martin, Plant City, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of grand larceny, was adjudged guilty of that crime, and was sentenced to serve five years in the State penitentiary. He maintains here that error committed in his trial was so prejudicial that he should be tried anew. We will discuss and decide in the order in which they are argued in his brief the first two questions he presents for our decision.
When the appellant was testifying in his own behalf he was asked, by his attorney, if he had 'ever been convicted' and replied that he had 'been convicted in the military service.' Immediately the county solicitor began the cross-examination of the appellant he persistently questioned him with reference to the relative periods the appellant had spent in the 'guard house' and in performing his duties as a soldier. His counsel persistently objected to the questioning and the court consistently overruled the objections. All this testimony, insists the appellant, was irrelevant and immaterial, and all the rulings admitting it constituted reversible error.
Of course, once the appellant became a witness he could be examined the same as any other witness about matters that would illuminate the quality of his testimony, and in the process he could be properly asked about former convictions of 'crime.' Sec. 90.08, Florida Statutes 1953, and F.S.A. Evidence of conviction of other crimes might affect the credit the jury would give his story, Martin v. State, 86 Fla. 616, 98 So. 827, cited in Watts v. State, 160 Fla. 268, 34 So.2d 429. It is the rule that a witness may be asked if he has been convicted of crime but the inquiry must stop there unless he denies the conviction, in which case the opposing party may produce the record of conviction. In any event the matter may not be pursued to the point of naming the crime when the defendant admits it, for such a course would result in an abuse of the rule to the disadvantage of the defendant. Washington v. State, 86 Fal. 519, 98 So. 603. However, it is proper for a defendant on his own account to state the nature of the crime of which he was convicted because the effect upon his testimony might vary according to the severity of the offense. Madison v. State, 138 Fla. 467, 189 So. 832.
In the instant case the initial question was asked by the appellant's attorney, instead of the county solicitor, and the question was incomplete. The appellant was not asked if he had been convicted of crime, but simply if he had been convicted-we might add-of something or other. If a person has been 'convicted', it does not follow that he has been convicted of 'crime', and in the present case any replies showing a comparison of the periods defendant was languishing in the guard house and performing the duties of a soldier would not establish his conviction of crime. Incarceration in the guard house might have been imposed for infractions of minor nature. And certainly even evidence of confinement in jail before trial is completely baside the point for many persons spend time in jail who are ultimately found not guilty. The course of questioning followed by the county solicitor was not proper under the theory that it would aid the jury in weighing the appellant's testimony by showing that he had been convicted of crime.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulton v. State
...the conviction can be brought out, unless the witness denies the conviction. See McArthur v. Cook, 99 So.2d 565 (Fla.1957); Mead v. State, 86 So.2d 773 (Fla.1956). If the witness denies ever having been convicted, or misstates the number of previous convictions, counsel may impeach the witn......
-
Stevens v. State
...the conviction can be brought out, unless the witness denies the conviction. See McArthur v. Cook, 99 So.2d 565 (Fla.1957); Mead v. State, 86 So.2d 773 (Fla.1956). If the witness denies ever having been convicted, or misstates the number of previous convictions, counsel may impeach the witn......
-
Garcia v. State, 87-2543
...no such possibility exists, no harm comes to the defendant when justifiable and excusable homicide are not defined. See Mead v. State, 86 So.2d 773, 775 (Fla.1956) (failure to instruct jury that grand larceny involved property worth more than $50 was harmless when jury makes specific findin......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ganey, 59-513
...concur. 1 45 U.S.C.A. § 56.2 State of Missouri ex rel. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1, 71 S.Ct. 1, 95 L.Ed. 3.3 Mead v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 773.4 Tampa Electric Co. v. Bazemore. 85 Fla. 164, 96 So. 297; Atlantic K. & N. R. Co. v. Gardner, 122 Ga. 82, 49 S.E. 818; Rosenkranz ......