Shields v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1953 |
| Parties | SHIELDS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
D. C. Laird and Ray Sandstrom, Lakeland, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was indicted on a charge of first degree murder and was convicted of second degree murder. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction.
The appellant here contends, among others, that the trial judge erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of a State's witness whose name had not appeared on a list of witnesses furnished to the appellant by the State in advance of the trial. The list had been furnished in compliance with an order of the trial judge, entered upon the motion of appellant, to furnish to the appellant 'a full and complete list of witnesses to be used by the State' and to keep such list up to date.
The record shows that, at the trial of the cause, the State called as a witness one Dr. Wardell E. Stanfield, to which testimony counsel for the appellant objected on the ground that Dr. Stanfield's name was not on the witness list. Counsel for the appellant admitted that he had received notice at 10;00 o'clock that morning that the State intended to call this witness; he did not ask for a continuance in order to interrogate the witness; nor did he make it appear that he had not had an opportunity to examine the witness subsequent to his actual notice that the witness would be called, had he desired to do so; in fact, he made no showing whatsoever that he would be prejudiced in any way by allowing this witness to testify. He contended only that the witness should not be permitted to testify since his name was not on the list and since he had had 'no substantial notice of this witness being called.' The trial judge overruled his objection and permitted the witness to testify, and the appellant here contends that this was error.
Our statute, Section 906.29, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that 'It shall not be necessary to indorse on any indictment or information the names of the witnesses on whose evidence the same is based, but upon motion of defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to furnish the names of such witnesses.' While it would appear that, upon the motion of the accused, a trial judge should require the State to supply a list of the witnesses upon whose evidence an indictment or information is based,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shouse
...Supreme Court has held that an order requiring such a disclosure may be entered in the discretion of the trial judge. See Shields v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 271. We therefore decline to quash that part of the order which directs the state to disclose to the defendants the names of persons......
-
Newman v. State
...in permitting the testimony of the two F.B.I. witnesses who had not been previously listed among the state's witnesses. See Shields v. State (Fla.) 64 So.2d 271 and State v. Shouse (Fla.App.) 177 So.2d Point 4. On whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant under the indi......
-
Kilpatrick v. State, 51894
...counsel did not request permission to reopen his case. These facts are significant to the issue of actual prejudice. Shields v. State, 64 So.2d 271 (Fla.1953). But see Johnson v. State, 312 So.2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA The determination of whether the trial court has made an adequate inquiry depe......
-
Ezzell v. State
...witness' presence and given an opportunity to interview him. This witness was not used until the fourth day of the trial. Shields v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 271, appears to be a complete refutation of this The next question has to do with the admission in evidence of defendant's confessio......