WILLIAM HALL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
William Hall was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial because the trial court admitted hearsay evidence regarding Hall's use of an alias, and the record failed to show the jury was sworn according to statutory requirements for capital cases.
The court held that the hearsay evidence regarding Hall's alleged alias was improperly admitted and should have been excluded. Additionally, the court identified a serious defect in the record showing that the jury swearing procedures required by statute for capital cases were not properly documented.
“It needs no argument or demonstration to show that the evidence was hearsay, and should have been excluded.”
The court's conclusion regarding the improper admission of the witness's testimony about statements made by the defendant's alleged wife concerning his use of an alias.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall was indicted jointly with Martha Altman for the murder of George Altman. After severance, Hall was tried separately and convicted of first-degree…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Liddon, J.:
The plaintiff in error was indicted jointly with one Martha Altman for the murder of one George Altman. A severance having been ordered, the plaintiff in error was separately tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. The verdict of the jury containing a recommendation to the mercy of the court, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Several assignments of error are made. We do not find that any of them are well taken except one, which is the fourth, and it is, that the court erred in admitting the evidence of the witness R.
B. Pitts over the defendant’s objection.
The evidence complained of was that portion of the testimony of said witness in which he stated that he “was in South Florida about a year and a half ago, and while there was told by a woman, the reputed wife of the defendant, that she had married a man by the name of William Johnson; that she married him in good faith, but that she had heard that his name was not William Johnson, but was Hall; that he (the witness) did not know the woman to be the wife of defendant, and did not know the defendant to be the person who was said to have used the name of William Johnson.” This evidence was offered in connection with other evidence tending, to show that after the commission of the offense the •defendant fled the country and changed his name from Hall to Johnson. It needs no argument or demonstration to show that the evidence was hearsay, and should have been excluded. Jenkins vs. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 South. Rep. 182.
While it is not assigned as error, the record shows a serious defect in the proceedings, to which we call attention. That portion of the record which sets forth the trial does not show that the jury was sworn in the manner required by the statute in the trial of capital cases. As to the portion of the jury taken from the regular venire it only appears that they were “duly chosen and empanelled to try said issue.” As to those jurors taken from a special venire it is stated that they were “duly chosen and sworn to complete the panel.” These entries show great carelessness in the conduct of the trial, or in making up the entries of the record in respect to the same. Attention is directed to the provisions of the statute and to the former decisions of this court upon the subject. Brown vs. State, 29 Fla. 543, text 551, 552, 10 South. Rep. 736.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and a new trial ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737 (Fla. 1895)
- Brown v. State, 29 Fla. 543 (Fla. 1892)