48 Fla. 46 | Fla. | 1904
Lead Opinion
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of assault with intent to murder in the Circuit Court of Jackson county at its spring term, 190,3, and from the sentence imposed seeks relief by writ of error here.
The State introduced one James Lewis as a witness, who, after testifying that he had visited the scene of the shooting by the defendant on the next day after the occurrence, was asked the question: “Can you state whether or not any shells were picked up that day or not?” To this question the defendant objected on the ground that what was done on the next day after the shooting was not recent enough. The objection was overruled and exception taken. The witness was then asked the following question: “State whether or not you picked up anything, or anything was picked up in your presence at that time ?" The defendant objected to this question on the same ground as the above, but the court overruled the objection to which ruling exception was taken, and these rulings constitute the first assignment of error that is argued. The witness in reply to these questions testified to having picked up some gun wadding on the scene of the shooting. There was no error here. The locality and circumstances attending the shooting were fully described by other witnesses. The fact of the shooting was not denied by the defendant, and the finding of gun wads or empty gun shells on the ground the next day after the shooting, corresponding in size with the calibre of the gun used, was a corroborative circumstance not improper, on the ground of remoteness, to be considered by the jury for what it was worth in connection with all the other facts in the case.
Alfred Nickles, a witness for the defendant, whose testimony was taken out of court on interrogatories, afte. testifying that he was quite near to the scene of the shooting, and heard the shot, and that he saw one Joe Seegars, who as a witness for the State had testified that he was present and witnessed the shooting, about ten or fifteen minutes
The third assignment of error insisted on here is the admission in evidence on behalf of the State of a letter written by the defendant’s witness Alfred Nickles, who is the father of the defendant, to the State Attorney, the sum and substance of which was a request to the State Attorney that he should avoid his obligations to the State and favor the defendant as much as possible. It is urged here that it was not admissible because it was not shown to have been written by the said Alfred Nickles. We do not think there is any merit in this assignment. In the cross interrogatories propounded to the witness Alfred Nickles he was asked if he had not written a letter to the State Attorney about the time of the receipt by him of the letter introduced, and if he had not mailed said letter at a place called Bascom,
The fourth assignment of error insisted on here is the refusal of the court to give a charge requested by the defendant. There was no error in this, since the pith and substance of the refused instruction had been already given by the court to the jury in more amplified form, and there was no error in the court’s refusal to reiterate it by giving the charge requested.
The defendant moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the verdict was not for any offense known to the laws of Florida, the verdict being as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to murder in the first degree.” This motion was denied and such ruling constitutes the fifth asignment of error argued here. The contention here is that this verdict is faulty because of its omission of the word “commit,” that it should have been: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree.” There is no merit in this contention. The word “murder” is often used in.the dual character of both a noun and a verb. When it is said that A concealed himself with intent
The sixth and last assignment of error urged here is the denial of the defendant’s motion for new trial. The only ground of this motion argued here is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. Without reiterating it here, we think that the verdict was amply sustained by the evidence on behalf of the State, which seems to have been believed by the jury.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the Circuit Court in said cause is hereby affirmed; and, as the defendant showed by his own oath and other evidence, that he was insolvent and unable to pay the cost in the case in whole or in part, it is ordered that the cosr of this writ of error be paid by the county of Jackson.
Hocicer and Cocicrell, JJ., concur.
Shackleford and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Carter, J., dissents.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring. — I concur in the opinion of the Chief-Justice that the Circuit judge committed no reversible error in striking out the testimony of Alf. Nickles to the effect that the boy Seegars had not time to get back to the place where the difficulty occurred, after going for water.
Alf. Nickles was an old man — nearly eighty-three years old — so infirm that his testimony was taken by deposition at his home. The defendant was his son. The evidence shows him to have been interested in the case, and
This evidence raises an inference which is not rebutted —that his opinion that Seegars had not had time to return to the scene of the difficulty, was formed largely, if not entirely, from what others had told him, and not from facts which he knew of his own knowledge.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. — I am satisfied that the court erred in striking the answer of the witness Alfred Nickles “No sir, he did not have time to leave Paul’s house,” upon the ground that it was an expression of the witness’ opinion. The following authorities demonstrate the error in the ruling: Ward v. Charleston City Railway Company, 19 S. C. 521; Funston v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 61 Iowa 452, 16 N. W. Rep. 518; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Yarbrough, 83 Ala. 238, 3 South. Rep. 447; Healy v. Visalia & T. R. Co., 101 Cal. 585, 36 Pac. Rep. 125; Town of Cavendash v. Town of Troy, 41 Vt. 99; Fulsome v. Town of Concord, 46 Vt. 135; Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. Brown, 49 Ill. App. 40; Sears v. Seattle Consolidated St. Ry. Co., 6 Wash. 227, 33 Pac. Rep. 389, 1081; People v. Hopt, 4 Utah 247, 9 Pac. Rep. 407. See, also, Commonwealth v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122; Wharton’s Crim. Ev., secs. 458 to 460, inclusive; Lawson on Expert & Opinion Ev. pp. 505 et seq. The witness stated that Seegars left the scene of the difficulty about ten or fifteen minutes before the shooting began, going to a house about three-eighths of a mile distant for water. -He was uncertain about the time, giving it as about ten or fifteen minutes, and the distance, giving it as about three-eighths of a mile. If he could have given the exact distance and the exact period of time, he could not because of the imperfection of the human powers of description and