Rhodes v. State, (1932)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 13
Judges: BUFORD, C.J. —
Attorneys: E. F. Housholder and R. W. Ware, for Plaintiff in Error;
Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and Roy Campbell,
Assistant, for the State.
Filed: Mar. 22, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted *Page 521 of the crime of murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court of Seminole County. There were three questions raised by the assignments of error which are necessary to be discussed. The first question presented is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. We think the evidence was entirely sufficient. The evidence shows that plaintiff in error and the deceased were at a Saturday night frolic; that a quarrel aro
Summary: In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted *Page 521 of the crime of murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court of Seminole County. There were three questions raised by the assignments of error which are necessary to be discussed. The first question presented is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. We think the evidence was entirely sufficient. The evidence shows that plaintiff in error and the deceased were at a Saturday night frolic; that a quarrel aros..
More
I think the third assignment presented reversible error. It is idle to say that an error
is harmless in admitting testimony upon which the State Attorney insists, notwithstanding objections by the defendant. No one knows better than the State's Attorney what evidence will help him get a conviction. Therefore, when he insists that certain evidence is legally proper, relevant and material to be admitted as a part of the State's case, and it is later found by the Supreme Court not to have been admissible, I think the State should be held bound by its vouchment for that testimony and that errors of this kind should not be excused as harmless. See Gunn vs. State, 78 Fla. 599, 83 Sou. Rep. 511.
Source: CourtListener
