Nelson v. State
| Decision Date | 15 July 1893 |
| Citation | 32 Fla. 244,13 So. 361 |
| Parties | NELSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Marion county; Jesse J. Finley, Judge.
John Nelson, Jr., was convicted of murder in the first degree, and brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under section 2383, Rev. St., a verdict that fails to specify the degree of homicide of which it finds the defendant guilty is a nullity, and no sentence can legally be pronounced thereon.
2. Where a witness, by whom it is designed to impeach the character of another for veracity, testifies that he knows the general reputation of the party to be impeached in the neighborhood in which such party lives for truth and veracity, the foundation for proving what that reputation is has been sufficiently laid, and the witness thus laying such foundation should be permitted to go on and testify as to what the reputation is, and whether he would believe such party under oath, without being interrupted by a cross-examination to test the extent and sources of his information as to such character. The proper practice in testing, by cross-examination, the extent and sources of the knowledge or information of such impeaching witness is to defer it until the witness has been turned over in regular order for cross-examination in general at the close of the examination in chief.
3. When character for peacefulness or turbulence is put in issue, the general rule is that it must be established by evidence of the general reputation of the party in the community for such character, and not by evidence of specific acts or conduct on particular occasions; and the proof in rebuttal in such cases should be confined also to general reputation, and not be allowed to go into specific acts or conduct on particular occasions.
Miller & Spencer, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was indicted and tried at the fall term 1892, of the circuit court for Marion county, for murder in the first degree of one Charles Davis, the trial resulting in the following general verdict, viz.: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty.' Upon the refusal of the court below to grant his motion for a new trial, the defendant was sentenced to die, and brings his case here by writ of error.
The insufficiency of the verdict in not specifying the degree of murder of which it finds the defendant guilty is assigned as error. The court, at its last term, in the cases of Hall v. State, 31 Fla. ----, 12 South. Rep. 449; Lovett v. State, 31 Fla. ----, 12 South. Rep. 452; and Murphy v. State, 31 Fla. ----, 12 South. Rep 453,--held that under the provisions of section 2383, Rev St., such a verdict is a nullity, and that no judgment or sentence could legally be pronounced thereon. This error is fatal to the judgment and sentence appealed from, and necessitates its reversal.
At the trial the defendant introduced several witnesses for the purpose of impeaching the character for truth and veracity of one of the witnesses for the state, by proof that such witness' reputation for truth and veracity in the community in which he lived was bad, and that no credence would be given to his evidence under oath. After the defendant's witnesses, introduced for this purpose, had testified that they knew the state's witness,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
...... and cause for reversal.' We have no doubt that proof in. such a case by the state in rebuttal of good character should. be confined to general reputation, and that specific acts or. conduct on particular occasions is improper. Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361. The court properly. applied this doctrine in the Reddick Case, and it was not. called upon to say what questions the state attorney could or. could not ask in cross-examining a witness who had testified. to the good character of the accused, as such a ......
-
Maloy v. State
...... opinion of another witness as to such credibility. The. inquiry should have been confined to the [52 Fla. 106] . general reputation of the defendant for truth and veracity as. affecting his testimony in any and all cases in which he may. be a witness. See Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13. So. 361; Mercer v. State, 40 Fla. 216, 24 So. 154,. 74 Am. St. Rep. 135. . . The. defendant asked a witness if he knew 'what the. deceased's general reputation for being able to. distinguish between his own property and hogs and that of. other people ......
-
State v. Anselmo
...... Harker,. supra , is not only upheld, but it is strictly enforced;. State V. Sterrett , 71 Iowa 386, 32 N.W. 387, approving and following Gordon V. State , 3 Iowa 410; People V. Bishop , 81 Cal. 113, 22 P. 477; Basye V. State , 45 Neb. 261, 63 N.W. 811; Nelson V. State , 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361; Cook V. State , 46 Fla. 20, 35 So. 665; McKelvey on Ev. (2d. Ed.), 123. The only difference among the courts goes to the. extent that the witness who testifies to the good character. of the accused and the accused himself may be cross-examined. In Iowa ......
-
Ray v. State
...... Hale, 122 Or. 24, 256 P. 770. That case was a civil. action. This decision, in our opinion, is contrary to the. weight of authority, sound reasoning and logic. We have held. several times how character may be shown in an action. See 4. Enc.Dig. of Fla. Reports, p. 105, et seq; Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361; Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372, 112 So. 73. In Johnson v. State, 57 Fla. 18, 49 So. 40, we held a certificate by. the Superintendent and a physician of the State Hospital for. the Insane to be inadmissible. In that case this Court said,. 49 So. 41:. . . ......