Minturn v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-213,61-213 |
| Citation | 136 So.2d 359 |
| Parties | Donald Ray MINTURN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sibley, Grusmark, Giblin, King & Levenson, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellant was found guilty of the crime of rape and was sentenced to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. By this appeal, appellant urges seven separate grounds for reversal of the jury verdict and judgment based thereon. We find it necessary to consider only two of these grounds since each of the two grounds is sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment.
The act involved took place during the early morning hours of September 20, 1960. The prosecutrix was employed at a downtown restaurant in the City of Miami. On her working nights she drove her car from her home to a location in Miami and parked the car behind a gas station. From there, the prosecutrix took a bus to the restaurant. After work she took the bus back to her car and proceeded home.
The record reveals that one week prior to the alleged crime the appellant observed the prosecutrix make the transfer from the bus to her car. The prosecutrix testified that on the night in question she was returning to her car when the appellant, who was waiting for her struck her over the head three or four times and thereafter raped her.
During the course of the trial, the State called a city detective as a witness. He testified as to the interrogation of the appellant which took place after the arrest, by referring to a notebook which was allegedly used by him to record the questions and answers during the interrogation. It is clear that the witness referred to the notebook during direct examination as a means of refreshing his independent recollection of the interrogation. At the conclusion of the State's examination of this witness, the court recessed for lunch. When the court reconvened, the defense attempted to cross-examine the witness as to the damaging testimony concerning the aforementioned interrogation. For some unexplained reason the witness no longer had the notebook used on direct examination. The defense objected and requested the court to instruct the witness to get the notebook. The objection was overruled and this has been assigned as error.
We hold that it was prejudicial error to allow the witness to use the notebook to refresh his independent memory as to the questions and answers which transpired during the official interrogation of the defendant without requiring that the notebook be made available to the defense during cross-examination. Williams v. State, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 797; Cohen v. Harris, 61 Fla. 137, 54 So. 905; 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, § 180, p. 279.
To hold otherwise would allow the circumvention of the accused's right to a full and fair cross-examination of witnesses. Where the State's witness testifies with the help of a notebook allegedly used to refresh his independent recollection, the accused has the right to examine the notebook and thereby be in a position to impeach the witness or discredit his testimony as to matters related on direct examination. The law of this state regards this right as a fundamental right which stems from the constitutional guaranty that the accused be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State, 6828
...where the evidence of the collateral and unconnected crime derives from previous statements of defendant, as here. See Minturn v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 359; Hooper v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 769; Moseley v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 167. The argument for inadmissibility is, ......
-
Lawson v. State
...the guilty verdict in a void conviction, the prejudicial effect in the minds of the jury could not be removed. See, Minturn v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 359; Cf., Toth v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 53; Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473, 92 S.Ct. 1014, 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972); Beto v. Stack......
-
Perez v. State, 68--268
...by an accused must be exercised (Moseley v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 167; Hooper v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 769; Minturn v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 359), no error was committed in this instance by the trial The defendant also urges that some of the state's exhibits were the p......
-
State v. Johnson
...him and the right to a full and complete cross-examination of the witnesses who are to be presented against him. Cf. Minturn v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 359; Belger v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 574; United States v. Williams, 424 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1970); CrPR 'Florida Rules of C......