Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 24 October 1905 |
| Citation | 50 Fla. 115,39 So. 465 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Charles B. Parkhill, Judge.
Fabe Robinson was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Under section 1096 of the Revised Statutes of 1892, those who had been convicted in some court in this state of one of the crimes enumerated therein were rendered incompetent as witnesses; but proof of such fact must have been adduced to render the proposed witnesses in competent.
Where the substance of proposed instructions, so far as they are applicable to the facts of the case, is fully covered by other instructions already given by court, there is no error in refusing those proposed.
After a criminal case has been closed on both sides, and the argument of counsel is being made, it is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court to permit either the state or the defendant to introduce additional evidence in furtherance of justice; and, unless an abuse of this judicial discretion is clearly made to appear, an appellate court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court either in granting or refusing such permission.
It is the duty of the defendant to bring to the attention of the trial court at the earliest possible moment any newly discovered evidence which he may desire to introduce; and, if he fails to so bring it to the attention of the trial court an appellate court will not disturb the ruling in refusing a motion for a new trial based upon the ground of such newly discovered evidence.
Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the verdict.
Price & Watson, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., and J. W. Kehoe, State's Atty., for the State.
At the fall term, 1902, of the circuit court for Jackson county, the plaintiff in error, Fabe Robinson (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was indicted for murder in the first degree was tried at the spring term of said court for the year 1904, convicted of manslaughter, and seeks relief here by writ of error returnable to the present term of this court.
The first error assigned is that 'the court erred in permitting Henry Leslie, a witness for the state of Florida, to testify on behalf of the state over the objections of the defendant.'
The bill of exceptions discloses the following state of facts, upon which said assignment was predicated: As soon as Henry Leslie was sworn as a witness on behalf of the state, the defendant asked permission to question the witness as to his qualifications as a witness, which the court granted, whereupon, in response to questions propounded by the defendant, the witness testified as follows: The defendant then objected to the witness testifying upon behalf of the state upon the grounds '(a) that said witness has been prior to the Acts of 1901 convicted of the crime of larceny, and under the law as it existed prior to the Acts of 1901 one convicted of such offense was thereby disqualified to testify in a court of justice; (b) that from the statement of said witness he had never been pardoned by the board of pardons of the state of Florida; (c) that the Acts of 1901, in so far as it attempted to remove the disqualifications of a person convicted of crime, convicted prior to the enactment of said statute, from testifying as a witness, is unconstitutional, for the reason that said statute, in so far as it attempted to remove such disqualifications as to persons theretofore convicted, was in the nature of a pardon and partook of the powers and duties of said board; that under the Constitution such power is vested solely in the pardoning board, and not in the Legislature--which said objections were by the court overruled, and to which said ruling the defendant did then and there except.'
The court, in ruling upon the objection of the defendant, said: 'I might state that my ruling upon the qualification of the witness is that he is a qualified witness under the law; but the fact of his conviction may go to the jury for their consideration.'
This assignment is forcibly and elaborately argued here by the defendant; but, in view of the fact that the question as argued here is not before us for consideration, no extended discussion by us is necessary. Section 1096 of the Revised Statutes of 1892 is as follows:
As no proof was adduced showing the conviction of the witness 'in any court in this state' of any crime enumerated in said statute, we do not see wherein this statute has any applicability. For this reason it is unnecessary for us to determine what effect the adoption of chapter 4966, p. 111, of the Laws of 1901, had as to the removal of disqualifications of witnesses convicted prior to its enactment. We find to merit in the assignment. The defendant, under the instructions given by the trial judge in overruling the objections interposed, had every benefit to which he was entitled, if any, under the statutes regulating the disqualifications of witnesses convicted of certain crimes.
The second assignment is that the court erred in refusing to give special charge No. 12 requested by the defendant, which is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby
... ... facts which are essential to a right of action, so that the ... declaration wholly fails to state a cause of action ... A ... declaration in an action against a railroad company, seeking ... to recover damages for personal injuries ... State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; McCoggle v ... State, 41 Fla. 525, 26 So. 734; Davis v. State, ... 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822; Robinson v. State, 50 Fla ... 115, 39 So. 465 ... Was the ... testimony admissible at all? In disposing of the fourteenth ... assignment we ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
... ... trial court in relaxing the rules of evidence to that end ... should be liberally exercised. Brown v. State, 40 ... Fla. 459, 25 So. 63; Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 ... So. 611; Burroughs v. State, 17 Fla. 643; Thomas ... v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. 161; Robinson v ... State, 50 Fla. 115, 39 So. 465. These cases, while ... recognizing a large discretion in the trial courts in the ... matter of relaxing the rules of evidence, are instructive, in ... that they assert the larger law that furtherance of justice ... should be the guide for courts, rather ... ...
-
Hughes v. State
...Anthony v. State, 44 Fla. 1, 32 So. 818; Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822; Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 So. 220; Robinson v. State, 50 Fla. 115, 39 So. 465. As state may be able, on another trial, to obtain further evidence, we will express no opinion as to the sufficiency of the ......
-
Perry v. State, 53003
...was discovered not after the trial but rather before closing arguments on the guilt phase. The court held that under Robinson v. State, 50 Fla. 115, 39 So. 465 (1905), the appellant did not use proper diligence and could have properly moved the court to permit him to reopen and introduce su......