Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 27 November 1920 |
| Citation | 87 So. 61,80 Fla. 736 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; C. L. Wilson, Judge.
Susie Robinson was convicted of manslaughter, and she brings error.
Reversed and new trial ordered.
Syllabus by the Court
Exemption of witness from rule excluding all witnesses held within discretion of trial court. The matter of exempting or refusing to exempt a witness from the operation of a rule excluding all witnesses from presence in the courtroom during the trial, until they are individually called to testify, is largely within the discretion of the trial court, and is not cause for reversal, unless the discretion is fiagrantly abused, to the patent prejudice of the party complaining of the ruling.
Conviction of witness of crime admissible to affect credibility. Under the provisions of section 1097, Revised Statutes of 1892 evidence of the conviction of a witness of any crime is admissible to affect his credibility, and it is error to exclude such evidence from consideration by the jury.
Remark by court to witness held erroneous, as expressly questioning his credibility. At the beginning of the examination of a witness for the defendant, the trial court sua sponte remarked to such witness: 'Let me warn you Mr. Burke that you answer just such questions as you are asked and no more.' This was error, since it tended to be an express questioning by the court of the credibility of the witness.
Evidence of search for knife by third party on scene of killing held not irrelevant. In a manslaughter prosecution, evidence that a third party, who had been present at the commission of the offense, appeared on the scene of the homicide early the next morning, looking for a knife, and that he looked for the knife at a certain place and stayed there a good while, held erroneously excluded as irrelevant.
John H. Carter, of Marianna, for plaintiff in error.
Van C Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and D. Stuart Gillis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary for the crime of manslaughter in the circuit court of Jackson county, and by writ of error brings this judgment here for review.
At the trial, after the witnesses for the state and the defense had been put under the rule excluding them from the courtroom until individually called to testify, the defendant's counsel moved the court to exempt one of his witnesses from the rule, and that such witness, who had been the foreman of the coroner's jury that investigated the homicide, be allowed to remain in court with defendant's counsel, to inform him of any discrepancies between the evidence of any of the state's witnesses as deposed at the coroner's hearing and their testimony at the final trial, but the court denied this motion, and this ruling constitutes the first assignment of error.
The matter of exempting or refusing to exempt a witness from the operation of the rule excluding witnesses from remaining in the courtroom during the trial of a case until they are individually called to testify is largely within the discretion of the trial court, and is not cause for reversal, unless the discretion is flagrantly abused, to the patent prejudice of the party complaining of the ruling. Some courts hold that this discretion is not reviewable. McGuff v. State, 88 Ala. 147, 7 So. 35, 16 Am. St. Rep. 25; Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204, 7 So. 38, 16 Am. St. Rep. 48; McClellan v. State, 117 Ala. 140, 23 So. 653; Shaw v. State, 102 Ga. 660, 29 S.E. 477. But we prefer the rule as announced by those courts that hold that it is a matter largely within the judicial discretion of the trial court, and that its action in that respect will not be reversed, unless it is made to appear that the discretion was improperly exercised, and that it operated to the prejudice of the party complaining of it. Jackson v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 107, 30 S.E. 452. There was no such abuse of the discretion here, and there is no showing that the ruling complained of resulted in any prejudice to the defendant. On the contrary, the defendant announced that he would not call as a witness the party that he desired to be exempted from the rule, upon which announcement the court permitted such party to remain in the courtroom during the trial to assist the defendant and her counsel in the matters suggested as a reason for his exemption from the rule, and such party was not called as a witness; and alleged discrepancies between the evidence of one witness for the state and his testimony before the coroner's inquest was attempted to be proved by another member of the coroner's jury.
The second assignment of error involves a ruling of the court exempting a deputy sheriff from the rule excluding the witnesses from the courtroom. There is no error here. What has been sad above as to the first assignment applies equally to this second assignment. No harm is apparent to the defendant from the ruling.
The third error assigned is the refusal of the court to permit one A. J. McMullen, an outsider, to remain within the bar of the courtroom during the trial. We think from what is shown by the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McVeigh v. State
...it is made to appear that he abused his discretion and that such abuse worked to the prejudice of the party complaining. Robinson v. State, 80 Fla. 736, 87 So. 61; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156, 91 So. 90; Woodbury v. Obear, 73 Mass. 467, 7 Gray, 467, 471; People v......
-
Spencer v. State, 31108
...two officers in the court room during the trial resulted in harm to the appellant. West v. State, 149 Fla. 436, 6 So.2d 7; Robinson v. State, 80 Fla. 736, 87 So. 61; Holder v. State, 136 Fla. 880, 187 So. 781; Young v. State, Fla.App. 3rd, 99 So.2d 304; Brown v. State, Fla.App. 2nd, 111 So.......
-
Grieco v. State
...This is not inconsistent with other circumstances in which evidence tying third parties to a crime is admissable. See Robinson v. State, 80 Fla. 736, 87 So. 61 (1920); Corley v. State, 335 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). I also do not consider the error to be harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 ......
-
Johnson v. State
...to a comment in the presence of the jury on the credibility of our witness, and on the weight to be given his testimony. In Robinson v. State, 87 So. 61, the simply warned a witness to answer such questions only as were asked, and the supreme court of Florida reversed the conviction because......