Stanley v. State

• Decision Date: 04 March 1927
• Citation: 112 So. 73,93 Fla. 372
• Parties: STANLEY v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

112 So. 73

93 Fla. 372

STANLEY v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

March 4, 1927

En Banc.

Error to Criminal Court of Record, Dade County; Tom Norfleet Judge.

James M. Stanley was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In criminal case, to prove any fact, best evidence should be adduced. To prove any fact, the best evidence of such fact should be adduced.

Best evidence of man's general reputation is opinion formed and expressed by neighbors or people in his community excluding question whether witness knew defendant's general reputation as to peaceableness without asking whether he knew defendant's general reputation among neighbors of his community, was not error. The best evidence of a man's general reputation is the opinion formed and expressed of him by his neighbors or people in the community in which he resides.

Whether refusal of correct charge is reversible error should be determined by considering it in connection with all charges given and evidence; refusal to instruct that defense of alibi raising reasonable doubt was sufficient was harmless error in view of other correct instructions and evidence. Whether the refusal to give a requested correct charge constitutes reversible error should be determined by a consideration of the requested charge, in connection with all the other charges given and the evidence in the case.

On failure to request desired charge and to except for refusal omission thereof may not be assigned as error. Where a party wishes to take advantage of the failure of the court to give to the jury a charge upon any point of law of the case, he should request the court at the proper time to give the charge desired, and, if such request be refused, take exception; if the party fails to exercise this right, he will not be heard to assign the omission by the court as error.

Unless truth of assertions relied on for new trial is properly disclosed by record elsewhere than in motion, appellate court will not consider error predicated thereon. The assertions of facts contained as grounds of a motion for a new trial are not self-verifying before an appellate court, and, unless the truth of such assertions is elsewhere properly disclosed by the record, an appellate court cannot consider assignments of error predicated thereon.

When trial court denies motion for new trial and evidence supports verdict, appellate court should not disturb it, in absence of showing of improper influence on jurors; evidence held to sustain conviction for manslaughter. When the trial court concurs in the verdict rendered by a jury by denying the motion for a new trial, and there is evidence to support it, an appellate court should refuse to disturb it, in the absence of any showing that the jurors must have been improperly influenced by considerations outside the evidence.

COUNSEL

Seymour & Collins, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

J. B. Johnson, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

JONES Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error, referred to hereinafter as the defendant, was tried in the criminal court of record of Dade county upon an information charging the crime of murder in the second degree. The jury returned a verdict for manslaughter, and defendant was sentenced to the state prison for a term of years. The defendant sued out writ of error and assigned seven errors, but the second and fourth assignments are abandoned.

The first assignment is that the court erred in sustaining the objection by the state to the question propounded to a witness for defendant as follows: 'Do you know the general reputation of the defendant as to peaceableness?' It is apparent that this assignment is not well taken. It is a cardinal rule of evidence that to prove any fact the best evidence of such fact should be adduced. A man is best known by his neighbors or people in the community in which he resides. It is their opinion, formed and expressed, based upon their knowledge of him, which establishes his general reputation. The question propounded to the witness did not restrict any knowledge the witness may have had concerning the general reputation of the defendant to any certain class of persons or to any particular place. The proper mode of examining into the general reputation is to inquire of the witness whether he knows the general reputation of the person in question among his neighbors or in the community in which he resides for peace and quiet, or for truth and veracity, or other trait of character that may be relevant. If the witness testifies he knows such reputation, then he may be asked to state what that reputation is, whether it is good or bad. Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, 15th Ed. § 461.

The defendant introduced testimony to prove that he was not present at the time and place of the homicide, and the third assignment is based upon the refusal of the court to give the special charge requested by the defendant as follows:

'I charge you further that the defense of an alibi is sufficient if it raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt.'

The requested charge correctly states the law of the case, and should have been given. But, whether the refusal to give a requested correct charge constitutes reversible error should be determined by a consideration of the requested charge in connection with all the other charges given and the evidence in the case. In view of all the testimony and other appropriate instructions given by the court in the general charge, it is our opinion that the jury was not...