Adkinson v. StateAdkinson v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Cockrell
Thе plaintiff in error, hereafter called the defendant, was convicted of breaking and entering a dwеlling with intent to commit a misdemeanor, and upon the rеfusal of the Circuit Court to grant him a new trial assigns here nine errors.
The first assignment is based upon the refusal of the court to permit the defendant’s attorney to propound the *2following question to the State’s witness Maggie Clark, to-wit: “Did you always shut and nail the doors when you left?” This girl, the twelve year old daughter of the prosecuting witness, had testified that she and her sister had nailed up thе house and closed it, going out through a sliding window. The breаking was an essential feature of the crime of which the defendant was convicted and while we do nоt say that the refusal to permit the question would in and of itself cause a reversal of this case, we think thе question should have been answered. The youth of the witness, as well as her natural interest in protecting her-, self against a possible accusation of nеgligence in the care of her father’s house, rеndered her peculiarly subject to the advantаges to be derived from a proper cross-еxamination.
On the other side we think the court below tоo liberal in allowing a cross-examination on the part of the State. A defendant’s witness, who had testified that the Clark girls had told him that negroes had stolen the property in issue and that the reputation of these girls for truth and veracity was bad, was asked by the State if he or his daughter were related to the defendant and replied in the negative, and then over defendant’s objection was asked if his daughter did not have two сhildren of which defendant’s brother is the father, and answеred in the affirmative, but that they were not married and that Adkinson’s brother did not visit‘his house where his daughter lived. The only effect such questions could have, it seems to us, is to dеgrade- the witness in the minds of the jury, not for any crime the witness may have committed, but because of the misfortune of a misguided daughter. Such left handed relationship is not recognized in the law as one likely to bias a witnеss’ favor, the tendency is much the other way and for рermitting the question the judgment must be reversed.
We have recently had occasion to pass at somе length upon what constitutes capacity in a witnеss to testify as to general reputation, and herе we need only to refer to our *3views as expressed in Alford v. State, 47 Fla. 1, 36 South. Rep. 436.
The rulings, the basis for оther assignments, are not likely to occur at another trial and will not be considered, nor would it be proper to discuss the weight of the evidence.
For thе error above noted the judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.
Taylor, C. J., and Hocker, J., concur.
Carter, P. J., and Shackleford and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.