Jones v. StateJones v. State
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for aрpellee.
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was informed against, tried and found guilty of manslaughter. On this appeal he urges error in the trial court bеcause the State was allowed to impeach one of its own witnesses. The witness wаs a girl friend of the defendant who was sitting with him in the cаr when he shot the deceased as the deceased was standing at the car window. Our review of the record convinces us that the differences between the witness’ statemеnts prior to trial and the testimony given on the witnеss stand constituted a sufficient basis for the cоurt‘s finding that the State was prejudiced or surprisеd by the differences in the testimony.
In Gibbs v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 193 So.2d 460, Mr. Justice Adkins sitting as аn associate judge on the District Court of Aрpeal, Second District, authored a dеfinitive opinion on the subject of the State‘s right to impeach its own witness. In that case it wаs held that there was no basis for the impeаchment inasmuch as the strongest statement that could be made relative to the testimony was that it was not as beneficial to the State as expected. The court, spеaking through Judge Adkins, held the impeachment to bе error and reversed. In reversing, the court sеt forth the law applicable to the subjеct as follows:
* * * * * *
“A party producing a witness cannot impeach him unless he not only fails tо give beneficial testimony but also he must beсome adverse by giving evidence that is prejudicial to the party producing him. A party сannot impeach his own witness who merely fails to testify as to beneficial facts.”
* * * * * *
In the present case, the witness injected at triаl a situation which her previous statements hаd completely ruled out. This element was аn assertion that the deceased reаched for the gun. The trial court propеrly ruled that the witness had gone beyond the mere failing to give beneficial testimony and had given adverse testimony. No error has been dеmonstrated. See Gibbs v. State, supra, and Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356, 22 So.2d 781 (1945).
Appellant‘s remaining point urging the insufficiency of the evidence tо support the judgment has been examined and found to be without merit.
Affirmed.