Sims v. State
| Decision Date | 12 April 1910 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | SIMS v. STATE. |
Rehearing Denied May 3, 1910.
Error to Circuit Court, Polk County; J. B. Wall, Judge.
Edward Sims was convicted of murder and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where evidence is admitted without objection, it is regarded as having been received by consent.
The grounds of objection to testimony should be specifically stated in the objection, and general grounds that the proffered testimony is irrelevant or immaterial will not avail, if the evidence is admissible for any purpose.
If evidence is admitted without objection, or if a question propounded to a witness is not objected to on proper grounds before it is answered, it is then too late to merely object on any ground to the evidence, or to the answer to the question. In such cases a motion may be made to strike the evidence, if the motion is based upon some ground of irrelevancy, immateriality, or legal inadmissibility.
The physical or mental condition or appearance of a person, or his manner, habit, or conduct, may be proved by the opinion of an ordinary witness, founded on observation. Therefore in a criminal prosecution it is not error to permit a witness to testify that upon observation the defendant 'appeared like he was a pretty mad man.'
A motion to strike all the testimony of a witness is properly denied, when some of the testimony was admissible.
A motion to strike out testimony that had been admitted must be predicated upon some feature of irrelevancy, incompetency legal inadmissibility, or impertinency in the evidence itself, and not upon the ground that it is not sufficient.
The admissibility of testimony does not depend upon its sufficiency to prove the issue.
In a prosecution for homicide, testimony that, after the defendant ran off from the scene of the homicide, he called to a companion who was present to 'come on,' is not wholly irrelevant.
In a prosecution for murder, a confession freely and voluntarily made by the defendant is admissible, as in other criminal cases.
Where a homicide is shown, testimony as to a voluntary confession made by the accused is admissible to show the defendant's connection with the crime.
Before a confession is admitted in evidence, it should appear that it was freely and voluntarily made, uninfluenced by any threat, promise, hope, or other inducement.
If a confession comes from a mere sense of guilt, it is admissible as evidence of the guilt.
When it appears prima facie that a confession was freely and voluntarily made, the burden is upon the defendant to show that it was in fact not a voluntary confession.
Whether a confession was voluntary or not may be shown by circumstances. A confession made while under arrest or in custody is admissible, if it was voluntarily made and was not influenced by any inducement.
The admissibility of a confession is for the court to determine. When it appears that a legal foundation was laid for admitting a confession as having been freely and voluntarily made, uninfluenced by the attending circumstances or by inducements, the confession is admissible in evidence; its probative force being for the jury to determine in the first instance.
A mere objection to the manner of conducting the cross-examination with no ruling and exception, cannot be considered by the appellate court.
A requested instruction that 'the court instructs the jury under the evidence the only offense which you can convict the defendant of in this case is that of manslaughter, if you should find him guilty of any offense,' is properly refused, when there is evidence upon which the jury could predicate a verdict of murder.
COUNSEL H. K. Olliphant, M. A. Wilson, and D. B. Summers for plaintiff in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction for murder in the first degree. Most of the assignments of error are upon the admissibility of evidence.
Where evidence is admitted without objection, it is regarded as having been received by consent. The grounds of objection to testimony should be specifically stated in the objection, and general grounds that the proffered testimony is irrelevant or immaterial will not avail, if the evidence is admissible for any purpose. If evidence is admitted without objection, or if a question propounded to a witness is not objected to on proper grounds before it is answered, it is then too late to merely object on any ground to the evidence or to the answer to the question. In such cases a motion may be made to strike the evidence, if the motion is based upon some ground of irrelevancy, immateriality, or legal inadmissibility. Sims v. State, 54 Fla. 100, 44 So. 737.
It appears that about 5 or 6 o'clock in the afternoon the defendant met the deceased on the railroad track and cut him with a knife. Death resulted some days later.
A witness for the state testified that about 9 of 10 o'clock in the morning, before the fatal cutting in the afternoon, the defendant came to the house where witness was boarding and asked for Mr. Doak; that defendant had his hand in his right pocket, and kept it there all the time, and said: The witness, referring to the defendant, testified that: Objection was made by the defendant to the last-quoted testimony, after it was given, 'on the ground that it is immaterial and irrelevant and highly improper.' In reply to a question from the court, the witness said: The objection was overruled, an exception was noted, and error is assigned thereon. As it appears from the bill of exceptions that the testimony was in before it was objected to, such testimony was not then subject to a mere objection. Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 So. 749; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909.
The physical or mental condition or appearance of a person, or his manner, habit, or conduct, may be proved by the opinion of an ordinary witness, founded on observation. Therefore it was not error to permit the witness to testify that upon observation the defendant 'appeared like he was a pretty mad man.' Higginbotham v. State, 42 Fla. 573, 29 So. 410, 89 Am. St. Rep. 237; Fields v. State, 46 Fla. 84, 35 So. 185; Mitchell v. State, 43 Fla. 584 31 So. 242. The witness did not state that the defendant's apparent anger was directed against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickels v. State
...with the rule above stated, the burden is then upon the defendant to show that it was in fact not a voluntary confession. Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198. In considering whether the confession is voluntary, the judge must, of course, determine the facts even upon conflicting evidence,......
-
Flowers v. State
... ... State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366; ... Dabney v. State, 119 Fla. 341, 161 So. 380; ... Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 So. 882; ... Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; ... Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; McNish ... v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176; Sims v ... State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198; Williams v ... State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So. 521; Moore v. State, ... 68 Fla. 91, 66 So. 431; McDonald v. State, 70 Fla ... 250, 70 So. 24; Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 ... So.843; Chambers v. State of Florida, 309 U.S. 227, ... 60 S.Ct. 472, ... ...
-
Porter v. State
...So.2d 517 (Fla.1973); Jalbert v. State, 95 So.2d 589, 591 (Fla.1957); Walker v. State, 152 Fla. 455, 13 So.2d 4 (1943); Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198 (1910); Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 So. 220 (1903); Jones v. State, 35 Fla. 289, 17 So. 284 (1895); Koran v. State, 213 So.2d 73......
-
Carnley v. Cochran, 158
...75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272. But if admitted without objection, it is generally regarded as having been received by consent. Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198. An objection after a question has been answered is sometimes held to come too late. Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 So. 518; Willia......