Rohdin v. State, 480
| Decision Date | 24 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 480,480 |
| Citation | 105 So.2d 371 |
| Parties | Knut ROHDIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stewart L. Ayers, Orlando, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant appeals from a judgment and sentence which he received as a result of a conviction on a manslaughter charge tried in the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County.
The information was in two counts. One, that the defendant caused the death of one, Henry Clay Austin, through culpable negligence in operating an automobile, and second, that he caused such death while operating an automobile in an intoxicated condition.
The appellant states two points, which he relies on for reversal of the lower court, said points being as follows:
Point I. The trial court's refusal to grant defendant's motion for a short recess when witness Austin testified on direct examination constituted reversible error.
Point II. The sentence is improper because it is not in harmony with the punishment prescribed by the Legislature of the State of Florida in Sections 782.07 and 860.01, Florida Statutes (F.S.A.).
The appellant's Point I was based on a motion which the appellant made during the testimony of the surviving widow of the deceased, Henry Clay Austin, who was called to the witness stand to identify a cap of the deceased and to identify a photograph of her deceased husband taken at the scene of the accident. The testimony of Mrs. Austin was very brief; it appears in the record as follows:
'Mrs. Margie Austin, a witness called for and in behalf of the State of Florida, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination
'Mr. Cooper: I am sorry, ma'am.
'Mr. Ayers: Your Honor, the defense asks for a short recess, prejudicial to the jury.
'Mr. Cooper: I don't know if it is prejudicial, but if it will help Mrs. Austin--
'Mr. Ayres: Your Honor, let the record show that the witness is in tears and that the defense moves again for a short recess on the grounds that this is prejudicial to the defendant's rights herein.
'Mr. Cooper: Yes.
'The Court: You want to ask her anything?
'Mr. Ayers: No.
'Mr. Cooper: Thank you, Mrs. Austin
'The Witness: Should I go outside?
It will be observed that when the attorney for the appellant asked for a recess at the start of Mrs. Austin's testimony when, as the record shows, she was 'in tears,' the county solicitor, Mr. Cooper, stated, 'I don't know if its prejudicial, but if it will help Mrs. Austin,' he apparently would not object. Mrs. Austin then replied, It is natural for a widow, several months after the death of her husband, to be in tears on being reminded of something connected with his death. It is always possible, of course, that the jury can be affected; but it is a hazard that the defendant has to meet, for naturally, in a case of this kind, the state must generally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booker v. State
...110 So.2d 1 (Fla.1959); Walker v. State, 44 So.2d 814 (Fla.1950); Infante v. State, 197 So.2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Rohdin v. State, 105 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). This view is also consistent with the United States Supreme Court's treatment of this issue. In Gore v. United States, 357......
-
Infante v. State
...bounds established by statute. Brown v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So.2d 458; Walker v. State, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 814; Rohdin v. State, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 371. The language of the statute granting a right of appeal to the defendant from a sentence on the ground that it is excessive ......
-
Shellman v. State, 68--641
...of the Constitution.' The above holding in Brown was followed in Walker v. State, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 814. See also Rohdin v. State, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 371; Infante v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 542; and Dickinson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 594. See also Green v. State, 1935,......
- Milgrim v. Kinser