Wolfe v. State
| Decision Date | 11 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 705,705 |
| Citation | 202 So.2d 133 |
| Parties | Karl Richard WOLFE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. D. Frederick, Jr., Public Defender, and S. Sammy Cacciatore, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Fred T. Gallagher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Vero Beach, for appellee.
Defendant, Karl Richard Wolfe, appeals a judgment of guilty of manslaughter entered on a jury verdict. He was charged by information with second degree murder but convicted of the lesser included offense.
The question presented is the correctness of the trial court's refusal to declare a mistrial when a witness for the state in reply to a question by the prosecution stated that the deceased victim Frank Sullivan was her husband.
Evidence of the victim's family status is normally inadmissible in a homicide prosecution. Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22; Hathaway v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 662. Standing alone, such evidence is irrelevant, immaterial and highly prejudicial, and where admitted may well warrant a reversal of a conviction. Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 58. This does not imply, however, that proof of a family relationship can never be admissible. When relevant to an issue, the testimony is admissible. A common example is when a relative testifies as to the identity of the deceased. Hathaway v. State, supra.
In the case before us, the defendant and deceased became engaged in an altercation during a drinking party. The testimony shows that after brutally beating the deceased, the defendant left the scene to get victim's wife ostensibly for the purpose of rendering first aid to her husband.
On the witness stand the wife was asked, 'Is Franklin Sullivan your husband?' and she replied affirmatively. Mrs. Sullivan then testified that the defendant told her he had 'beat up Frank,' and gave her his reasons for doing so. This testimony clearly bore on the issue of defendant's guilt. The witness' relationship to the victim was a relevant fact that explained and gave credence to her testimony. It was important for the jury to know who the witness was in order to understand and evaluate her testimony regarding the defendant's admissions. Otherwise, the reason for the defendant's statements to her would not have been clear and the probative value of her testimony would have been lessened.
We find no merit in this and the other points raised by defendant.
Affirmed.
The trial court was in error in refusing to declare a mistrial when the witness for the state disclosed pursuant to a question by the state that she was the wife of the deceased. The majority expresses that fact that proof of family relationship is admissible when relevant to an issue before the court. With this we are in full agreement. However, we feel in the case before us the status of the witness for the state being that of the deceased victim's wife was clearly irrelevant and immaterial to any issue before the court and highly prejudicial to the defendant.
It is clear that the identity of the deceased was established by several witnesses for the state prior to any testimony being elicited from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Story
...So.2d 899 (1962); Walker v. State, 239 Ark. 172, 388 S.W.2d 13 (1965); Foster v. State, 266 So.2d 97 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972); Wolfe v. State, 202 So.2d 133 (Fla.App.), appeal dismissed, 207 So.2d 457 (Fla.1967); People v. Bernette, 30 Ill.2d 359, 197 N.E.2d 436 (1964); People v. Miller, 6 N.......
-
Lewis v. State, 49668
...solely for the purpose of accentuating the fact that the decedent left surviving children, Rowe v. State, supra; Wolfe v. State, 202 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), due to the context within which this revelation was made we find appellant's argument to be unpersuasive. Both James Martin and......
-
Foster v. State, 71--370
...v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 67. However, the case sub judice comes within the exceptions to the general rule. Wolfe v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 133; Furr v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 269; Scott v. State, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 19. And, when defense counsel made a motion in......
-
Barrett v. State, 71--830
...e.g. Scott v. State, supra; Megill v. State, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 539; Furr v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 269; Wolfe v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 133, so that it certainly is Not 'fundamental error' per The judgment is affirmed. REED, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur. ...