Steele v. State

• Decision Date: 19 January 1923
• Citation: 95 So. 299,85 Fla. 57
• Parties: STEELE v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

95 So. 299

85 Fla. 57

STEELE v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

January 19, 1923

Error to Circuit Court, Okaloosa County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.

P. M Steele was convicted of forgery, and of uttering a forged instrument, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Exclusion of evidence to discredit witness concerning transaction already in record erroneous. A ruling of the trial court excluding proffered proof tending to discredit, by showing his interest, the evidence of the principal state witness in a criminal prosecution, is not erroneous, where the transaction alleged to show such interest fully appears from other evidence which was admitted.

Unless all exhibits in evidence below identified in bill of exceptions, verdict cannot be considered on appeal. Where the trial judge certifies that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence introduced at the trial, 'with the exceptions of the exhibits,' the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict cannot be considered by the appellate court, where such exhibits are not by apt language in the bill of exceptions made a part of it, and so identified and authenticated as that there can be no doubt of their identity, although certain documents purporting to have been offered in evidence in the trial are exhibited to the appellate court, pursuant to order of the trial court 'to send up to the Supreme Court all the original exhibits introduced at the trial.'

Error based on given charges, not included in motion for new trial nor excepted to, not considered on appeal. Where assignments of error are based on charges given by the court to the jury and there is no motion for a new trial embracing, as grounds therefor, such alleged erroneous charges, and it does not appear from the record that exceptions were taken to them such assignments cannot be considered.

COUNSEL

D. Stuart Gillis, of De Funiak Springs, for plaintiff in error.

Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and J. B. Gaines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

WEST, J.

In an indictment containing two counts, plaintiff in error was charged with forgery and uttering a forged instrument. The trial upon this indictment resulted in a verdict of guilty as charged. Motion for new trial was made and granted as to the first count, charging forgery, but denied as to the second count, charging the uttering of a forged receipt. To review the judgment imposing sentence, writ of error was taken.

The ruling of the trial court, denying defendant's motion to require that state to elect between the two counts of the indictment before proceeding with the trial, is assigned as error, but this assignment is abandoned.

The second assignment is based upon a ruling excluding certain proffered proof tending to discredit, by showing his interest, the evidence of the principal state witness. The alleged forged writing, for the uttering of which defendant was convicted, purported to be a receipt from this state witness to the defendant for money, acknowledging payment of the amount stated in the receipt, upon an indebtedness due by defendant to the witness, as mortgagee, and secured by a mortgage of defendant upon farm lands owned by him. It was uttered by being offered in evidence by defendant before the master in proof of payment, or partial payment, in a suit to foreclose the mortgage, in which suit the property was sold and purchased by the witness. So far as the record discloses the foreclosure suit was finally determined before the trial of this case. Even if the proffer were properly made, the ruling cannot be said to be harmful, for the reason that this interest, if interest affecting the witness' credibility may be said to result from the transaction stated, was undisputed, and amply appeared from other evidence of the transaction, and could therefore be cumulative proof only, and upon a collateral issue. The ruling...