Revels v. State
| Decision Date | 22 October 1912 |
| Citation | 59 So. 951,64 Fla. 432 |
| Parties | REVELS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Suwannee County; Ira J. Carter, Judge.
Gus Revels was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In cases of homicide, it is best always to have the evidence of medical experts, if they can be obtained, as to the fatal character of wounds, but, where such evidence is not accessible, nonexperts may, after describing the wounds, give their opinions as to whether such wounds caused the death with their reasons therefor; and if, from such evidence, the jury is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wounds thus testified about did produce the death, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The conduct of the cross-examination generally and the range which it shall be permitted to take rest in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion, unless an abuse thereof is made to appear.
In treating an assignment of error based on the overruling of the motion for a new trial, an appellate court will consider only such grounds of the motion as are argued before it.
Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the verdict.
COUNSEL L. E. Roberson and C. D. Blackwell, both of Live Oak, for plaintiff in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, of Tallahassee, for the State.
The plaintiff in error was tried by a jury upon the charge of murder in the first degree, found guilty, with a recommendation to the mercy of the court, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Upon writ of error, he has assigned six errors, which he submits call for a reversal of such judgment. The argument in support of the assignments is slight, and no authorities are cited to us. The plaintiff in error was indicted for the murder of Shelton Denmark, who was his brother-in-law, the plaintiff in error, who will be referred to hereafter as the defendant, having married the sister of the deceased, and the tragedy occurred at the home of the defendant. It is established by undisputed testimony that the father of the deceased had been unwilling for the sister of the deceased to marry the defendant; that the marriage took place away from the home of Mr. J. B. Denmark the father of the wife of the defendant; that the relations since such marriage between the defendant and his wife and her family had been strained to put it mildly; that hard feelings existed between the defendant and the deceased, who had been endeavoring to get his sister to leave her husband. The only eyewitnesses to the entire tragedy were the defendant, his wife, and the deceased, though other witnesses saw portions of it. The fact of the shooting of deceased by the defendant and his resulting death is admitted by the defendant in his own testimony on the witness stand but the defendant sought to show that the deceased had attacked him with a knife, and that he had shot and killed the deceased in self-defense.
The first assignment is as follows: 'The court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant to the following question propounded by the state's attorney to S.E. Thompson: 'Is it your opinion or not that these wounds produced the death of young Denmark?”
The bill of exceptions discloses that the witness in question had testified that he was an undertaker, and had been employed by the father of the deceased to prepare his body for burial; that he did so prepare such body, and while engaged in so doing discovered certain wounds thereon, which he proceeded to describe. He was then asked the question copied above, which was objected to by the defendant on the ground that 'the witness has not qualified as an expert.' In view of the subsequent testimony adduced and especially of the defendant's own admissions in his testimony, we do not see how any harm could have resulted to the defendant from the admission of this testimony, even though error was committed therein. But there was no error in the ruling upon which the assignment is based. 'In cases of homicide it is best always to have the evidence of medical experts, if they can be obtained, as to the fatal character of wounds; but, where such evidence is not accessible, nonexperts may, after describing the wounds, give their opinions as to whether such wounds caused the death, with their reasons therefor; and if, from such evidence, the jury is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wounds thus testified about did produce the death, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction.' Edwards v. State, 39 Fla. 753, 23 So. 537. Bellamy v. State, 56 Fla. 43, 47 So. 868, is also well in point.
During the examination of Lilla Revels, the wife of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Padgett v. State
-
State v. Howard, 4
...always best to have testimony of medical experts 'as to the fatal character of wounds' if such evidence is available. Revels v. State, 64 Fla. 432, 59 So. 951. Where, however, such evidence is not accessible, a nonexpert who saw the wounds upon the body of the deceased may describe them to ......
-
Mitchell v. State
...the trial court should be reversed. The authorities relied upon for reversal are Edwards v. State, 39 Fla. 753, 23 So. 537; Revels v. State, 64 Fla. 432, 59 So. 951, and cases from other Ophelia Wright, a registered nurse with ten years' experience, was adduced by the State as a witness in ......
-
Harris v. State
...So.2d 662; Baisden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 194), and should not be lightly interfered with by an appellate court. Reveals v. State, 64 Fla. 432, 59 So. 951; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 180. A trial judge is in a much better position to determine the order of proof and......