Reeves v. State

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WHITFIELD, J.
• Citation: Reeves v. State, 66 So. 432, 68 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1914)
• Decision Date: 21 October 1914
• Parties: REEVES v. STATE.

66 So. 432

68 Fla. 96

REEVES v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

October 21, 1914

Error to Circuit Court, Brevard County.

Wilson Reeves, alias Charlie James, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Testimony is not to be excluded merely because it is or may be incorrect, or may or may not be prejudicial.

Technical errors, if any, in the admission of evidence or in the charges given or refused in a case will not cause a reversal of the judgment, when it is apparent that no harm could have resulted therefrom.

COUNSEL Uly O. Thompson and Rufus M. Robbins, both of Titusville, for plaintiff in error.

T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The plaintiff in error, having been convicted of murder in the first degree for fatally cutting the deceased, took writ of error.

It was clearly shown that the homicide was committed on Tuesday, February 3, 1914, as alleged, and the contention that the testimony of a witness that February 3, 1914, was on Monday should have been excluded by the court of its own motion is clearly untenable. Even if the point could be material in this case, testimony is not excluded merely because it is or may be incorrect or may or may not be prejudicial.

The defendant testified without objection that he had changed his name from Wilson Reeves to Charlie James, and objection was made to the question, 'What did you change it for?' on the ground that 'it has nothing to do with the crime and as tending to show other specific evidence.' The objection was overruled, and an exception was noted. In answer to the question the defendant said, 'I had killed a man.' In view of the testimony of the defendant that he cut the deceased and the other evidence as to the circumstances of the fatal cutting, the above ruling was not harmful, if error.

Exception was taken to a refusal of the court to give the following requested instruction:

'Under this statute the accused can only be punished for such degree of the offense charged against him as the testimony discloses, and this notwithstanding a full confession of guilt.'

This language was used by this court in Green v. State, 40 Fla. 474, 24 So. 537, in discussing the statute relative to a finding of the degree of unlawful homicide, even where there is a confession of guilt on arraignment. The evidence in ...