Palm v. StatePalm v. State
*1
undercover
County,
assignments
office with
Pinellas
of the Court to
spotter,
detective or
then
became
duty
act
to the effect that when ‘‘people
have
instructed
jury
spotters their evidence
private
detectives or
capacity
caution,
with
it becomes the
should be
duty
received
say
to scrutinize the
testimоny
people
persons
whether or not
so
acting
biased,
them
influenced
whether
interests
serve had
they
to an
reflect
their testi-
extent
would
affect
mony.”
See Street v.
729.
So.
Leroy Palm v. State.
“By Attorney: The State’s object question.
“I It that is improper. “By The Objection overruled. Court: Yes, “A. sir.
“Q. reputation Was reputation, ? good or one a bad “A. A bad one. as to whether
“Q. What was weapons, carried or a him? pistol with “By answer question.' You need not The Court: noted). exception “(Defendant’s to- reputation, know Williams’ “Q. Stepp Do you ? weaрons carying Attorney: that, on objects State
“The State’s not been shown improper, that it has that it is the ground time weapon at the carrying any Williams Stepp cutting. of this
“By whether What he trying get The Court: it. What author- reason to believe not the defendant had *3 Hall? on that Mr. you question, have ity counsel, and was objection argued by “(Therеupon overruled by Court). Williams had a Do not you Stepp know whether
“Q. weapons? reputation for carrying All knife.” pocket “A. I know about was a a in his When the defendant was on the stand as witness behalf as to to'give own allowed scrape. a shows deceased record having cutting following: Do Williams’ down in
“Q. you know Stepp for weapons? Do know carrying you gen- his locality eral reputation weapons? for carrying
“A. Yes sir. reputation—what Did he have the
“Q. reputa- tion, or bad? good, ' “A. Bad. Did ever know of occasion
“Q. you to trouble Stepp had some about or cutting ? scrapes
“By Mr. Parker: I that. It object to is improper and immaterial. “(The argued objection by counsel and sustained exception noted).”
the Court—defendant’s for the respective parties Counsel do not in their agree briefs to exact to be in question, questions, decided this case on this We writ of error. out the adverse have’set trial court on the rulings admissibility testimony: n (a) defendant; witness when defend- (b) ant was a witness own behalf. his 1It contеnded counsel for error lower court an objection erred sustaining interposed on part of the State to a question propounded Attorney witness, Garner, defendant, 'the offered behalf of Jake is, 'which question viz.: “Do know Williams’ Stepp reputation as to The lower carrying weapons?” obj sustained an ection thеreto and would not permit wit ness answer same. It appears this question was fully 'settled adversely the contention of counsel for plaintiff in ¿freír when this Court that the held circumstances under which such evidence go allowed the aid of a self plea of defense are that said must relate to a character, dangerоus violent and the circum of the case make it admit in proper stances evidence such be proven must by testimony repu tation in the community, and not by acts of general *4 State, bad conduct. 113, 835, See Garner v. 28 Fla. 9 So. 232; 29 Am. State, St. v. Rep. 170, Garner 31 Fla. 12 So. 638.
It is the lower next in contended erred sustain interposed an the objectiоn part of the ihg on State Attorney to counsel for following propounded the de fendant the defendant to upon was the stand as 'witness, ever you viz.: “Did know of occasion previous n tothat where some trouble Stepp had about a knife or cut scrapes ?” This a- ting Court had before it similar question Copeland State, 320, the case of v. 319, 41 Fla. 26 So. when it said: was
262
“ ** * witness Dr. The first examined State was Henkel, in- who as to wounds testified character the deceased. On cross-examination he stated flicted that he five then years, had known deceased and was in the she community asked what her character which was objection, lived. The on State’s question was excluded correct and this as error. The ruling ruling several reasons. The elicited for be in the not in direct evi- brought cross out anything at the time dence. no foundation whatever laid There was the introduction evidence as character of the for deceased, phase nor in- character 21, 738; dicated. Fla. Gаrner v. 28 Bond State 170, Ibid, 835; Rep. 12 Fla. South. Fla. South. evidence In his own behalf accused Rep. gave the moral character of the deceased. impeach tending a woman that tried to over- always He testified she was man as she State good objected come thought. deceased, objec- and the evidenсe as to the character of then proposed tion was sustained. Defendant’s counsel fol- propounded examine him as to her what character she. ‘will state sort of lowing question: lived, Clark) she community bore (Mary and vindictiveness whether it was good ferocity bad ?’ The court excluded the testimony cussedness excеpted. and defendant the conditions under carefully court has considered
“This which, homicide, cases violent, dangerous person quarrelsome the deceased as case, reported can In given. Garner’s that evidence of the violent and Rep. held South. 835. it was show, is admissible to character of deceased dangerous show, has self- that a defendant acted or as tending defense, naturally circumstances as would or under such *5 to believe himself to be at reason man ordinary cause a of life, of danger losing his the of the imminent time killing harm, de the of the at hands suffering great bodily or of this ; not admissible for purpose but such evidence is ceased or sgnificance explains, meaning, when it will except give time of the kill point to the conduct of deceased deceased so; will such conduct of the ing, or tend do explain, at the time which is to thus killing, proposed such charac auxiliary must before evidence of be shown proposes ter be can introduced. And a defendant his self- the deceased in aid of plea show the character of defense, stated, the evidence must under the circumstances the deceased violent general confined State, v. Garner dangerous person. State, 638; Rep. 32 Fla. South. Nelson v. South. ” * * * Rep. 361 in error It is contended сounsel State, Copeland bar from Nelson case at v. distinguishable State, v. in that the supra, Garner question, viz.: “Did ever know occasion or cutting had some trouble about Stepp defendant, ?’’ scrapes to the cases propounded while last above witnesses defendant cited involved .offered Further, and not the defendant himself. defendant behalf; being here was: on the (b) stand own (a) murder in de- tried on indictment the second charging "(c) tendered of self defense gree; plea ques- had tion support ; thereof defendant had (d) knowledge information sought this time had information at the fatal 'encounter. cases, witnesses for the This held in the supra, Court are the general repu- in a criminal case limited to defendant not to community tation deceased and author- high some We observe bad conduct. *6 ity the contention counsel in sustaining expressed Wig Evidence, more on Vol. 1 (2nd Ed.), par. p. author that defendant should be prove admits allowed to fact and circumstance known him every which was calcu lated to create an apprehension for his own safety; that the true solution is a discretion, to exercise admit such facts when common sense that could they legitimately tells affect a apprehension. defendant’s It seems that author has enunicated the correct rule and it is accord with the general trend of the decisions of courts resort in the last different States of the is, Union. The rule viz.:
“248. Defendant (1) Homicide: (c) Violent it If could shown the de Acts ti-ie Deceased. ceased had just streets, before been amuck in running and that defendant was informed that the deceased was on his way towards the lоcality, defendant’s it difficult to believe that Court decline consider this conduct would on the apprehensions. defendant’s bearing The fact the circumstance is a apprehension single creating act acts, series of instead of a does neces sarily destroy its create Nor apprehension. caрacity does its distance time from the moment neces affray have effect. sarily may Such may not in a case be create calculated to but given apprehension; exclusion, there no reason for a fixed rule invariably their forbidding consideration:* in; *1884, Niblack, J., Boyle in'per- 97 Ind. “As 326: every permitted sonal conflicts mаn. is within reasonable limits to appearances upon act and to determine himself when he is danger, follow, consequence, real seem to as an inevitable would upon appearances that whoever relies reasonable determina- appearances, homicide, ought such tion as a defense in case of prove every to be allowed to fact and known him circumstance The state the law has come on whole favor the Nevertheless, majority facts. admissibility *7 was, time, for a abso- jurisdictions, such long In excluded. was to probably some instances this due lutely a notion that the deceased’s is objectively character 198, to be shown (on par. acts the by particular principle ; but the ante) is show such conduct purpose merely to real it objec- as would excite whether apprehension, naturally Certainly character or not. indicates fixed trait of tively common from the sense law analogies (apart all evidence; vicious particular for if favor situation) fairly calculated and was with deceased which connected safety.” apprehension for his create own Ladd, J., 503: McQuiggan 64 Atl. 79 Vt. Miles, Ladd, against battery “This and was an action assault John ** * bearing Eugene Spicer. reason Daniel Ladd As and repelling by assault ableness of the used Daniel claimed force tending plaintiff, gave evidence of the the defendants claimed and prove reputation at knew the time Daniel observation and that plaintiff influence of when under the intoxi assault that the man, quarrelsome cating liquor, dangerous and that on was a and was, occasiоn, question plaintiff in the influence of under Daniel, toxicating liquor, and which was then detected consequence thereof, having had in mind what he knew and circumstances, plaintiff’s was under such character he heard * * * of him. afraid exception plaintiff’s the admission of “The first is to Brown, McCormick, they testify Ladd, Mrs. wherein the, they under the influence had on different occasions seen liquor question, intoxicating at assault times ugly, occasions was- cross above. those stated on error, attempt plaintiff urges that because it was an The this * * * specific prove word character instances. ‘character’ objective subjective meaning, quite- is well as a has an which dis- man, objective applied is tinct. As character his actual char- Subjective possesses is character as he acter. character such! of an animal are relevant to show that owner its par. warned of its 251), viciousness (post, and if misconduct of an relevant employee to show his em- ployer warned of his incompetency par. 250), (post, then particular unscruplous deeds of well be may violence deemed relevant an apprehension to show of violence from such person. discretion, The true solution is to exercise a and to admit such facts when common sense tells us that they could affect a defendant’s legitimately apprehension.”
Let admit that the in a us defendant could case like testify violence, one bar acts of then it becomes necessary to determine whether or not the question as error comes within rule. The general, *8 others, aggregate persons’ minds of and is or abstract of other * * * opinions bar, of him. In case like a the one person by knowledge actions of a third are to an- be affected character, only subjective may other’s not in- character be volved, objective one, may well, but as influ- the action of by another, enced the character of is to the extent affected same by general report knoweldge a belief in the truth of as it is fact; fact, of because in either case he believes he knows the * * * important. it is that and which is belief “It follows that it was admissible for the to show what defendants plaintiff, being was observed to the cross as character as to' ugly liquor intoxicating and under the influence of at a time that, previous And, alleged to the assault. it was order to show necessary intoxicating to show' under that he was the influence of liquor And, on those occasions. as the case fends to that the show defendant, Daniel, knew of those traits of character at the time of every alleged battery, necessary assault and observed, up occasion which went to make and establish the exist- brought knowledge of those traits to the ence be should enough of the defendant in all their details. It was that he knew existed, traits him of character communicated to respecting coming him witnesses testified them or from who other . sоurces.” act, specific indefinite and not limited 'to any vague and is violence, acts, is so framed to be construed to cover but be would life when the prosecution of deceased’s many years to refute the position proffered in a disadvantageous placed error, argued here and testimony. The question The most, appealed harmless error. judgment at the is affirmed. from J., P.
Wi-iitfield, Brown, concur. J., (he opinion concur Buford, J., J.,C. Terrell, judgment. specially. concurs
Thomas, J., an indictment' for mur prosecution on Thomas, In a J. self defendant asserted defense degree der second as a witness following question examination upon his evеr know of occasion asked: “Did had some trouble about where Stepp (deceased) sustained scrapes?” objec cutting of the evi propriety tion which for discussion brings up It is the rule Florida that be adduced. dence deceased, or evidence of acts of violence by him, gen where his inadmissible bad conduct but in the to be established instant eral is sought the defendant himself. propounded case allowed, where that the It seems to us accused logical *9 defense, that he knew self to show maintains deceased, it enlightens of violence on the because part acts time the difficulty at the on state of mind whether he as a сonclude acted enables them to thereby on the belief he was person would reasonably prudent harm. See great of death or danger bodily imminent Harris, 87, 648; v. Mich. 54 W. v. 95 N. Crow People Rep. Burton, 419, 814; 63 State, Rep. 88 W. State v. 48 Texas S. 602, 633; Rep. Kan. Pac. Deeb So. 894. was, however,
The question in this case quite indefinite as time deceased, former violent we do feel judge was error sustaining objection to it. J., C. Terrell, Whitfield, Brown, Buford J., concur.
Ci-iapman, J.
F. Cortina v. State. J.