Saxon v. State
Decision Date | 22 August 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 2142,2142 |
Citation | 225 So.2d 925 |
Parties | Edward SAXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Philip S. Shailer, Public Defender, and Robert E. Huebner, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. Tallahassee, and James M. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Defendant was tried by jury, convicted of second degree murder, and duly sentenced. He appeals. We reverse.
The victim was the two year old step-daughter of the defendant. It is sufficient to say without particular detail that there was circumstantial and direct evidence of cruelty and abuse on the part of defendant, some conflicting, which lead to the victim's death. It came as a direct result of a head or brain injury, subdural hematoma. It was caused either by a blunt instrument or by the body's being in motion and striking some flat surface.
We address ourselves to the appellant's principal grievance. He claims that the trial court erred by allowing into evidence testimony and pictures concerning a crime other than the one with which appellant was charged.
Dr. Joseph C. Rupp, a County Medical Examiner and pathologist, conducted an autopsy. The examiner, using a number of 8 10 photographs of the brain and head area taken during autopsy, explained and demonstrated the cause of death. He then produced, over objection, two photographs of the dead child's genitalia and anal area before the jury and testified:
It is clear and undisputed that acts of buggery were not shown to have been committed by the defendant and he was not connected to such acts in any way. Further, the fact of buggery was in nowise associated or connected with the cause of the child's death and Dr. Rupp testified that neither of these two pictures was needed to explain the cause of death. We feel that allowance of these pictures and this testimony deprived the defendant of a fair trial because they were immaterial, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial.
The state frankly concedes that no link was established between the defendant and such criminal sexual abuse. Thereby, it is the state's hypothesis that the error was harmless. We disagree and can hardly think of a more damaging error. This testimony, coming on the heels of the other proper testimony concerning the tragic circumstances of the death of this helpless infant, could not help but lead to implications--not legally established--that the defendant was responsible for this reprehensible criminal conduct.
In Norris v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 158 So.2d 803, the defendant was accused of killing a person by poisoning. Evidence was admitted of the death of defendant's husband and employee by poisoning; however, there was nothing connecting defendant to the crime. In reviewing for a new trial the court said:
'Where the evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. State, s. 69-644
...v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 866; Reddish v. State, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 858; Young v. State, Fla.1970, 234 So.2d 341, and Saxon v. State, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 925. Relating the rationale of Albritton and the other cited cases to the admitted facts in the instant case, we are of the view ......
-
Headrick v. State, 69-289
...in the case then at bar'. See Hawkins v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 5; Bogan v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 110; Saxon v. State, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 925; Reed v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 364; Tafero v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d This is not to say that by our holding here w......
-
Farias v. State
...and its potential for offending the jury's sensibilities and evoking sympathy for the victim was substantial. See Saxon v. State, 225 So.2d 925, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (holding that where photographs are irrelevant, and their only purpose for admission is to influence and prejudice the jur......