HENRY E. BRYAN, 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.
Henry Bryan was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter under an indictment charging assault with intent to commit murder, and sentenced to five years in state prison. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Bryan's contentions that the offense does not exist and that the trial court improperly admitted impeaching testimony regarding his wife's credibility.
The court held that assault with intent to commit manslaughter is a valid offense under Florida law, and that the trial court properly admitted impeaching testimony to counteract the harmful effect of the wife's adverse testimony, despite the delayed introduction of the predicate and questions of leading nature.
“Such contention is fully met and overthrown by the decision of this court in the case of Williams v. State, 41 Fla. 295, 26 South. Rep. 184, and we see no good reason for changing the views of the law as there expressed.”
Establishes that assault with intent to commit manslaughter is a valid offense under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBryan was indicted for assault with intent to commit murder but was convicted of the lesser offense of assault with intent to commit manslaughter and …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contradictory Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Under an indictment for an assault with intent to commit murder, the defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to commit manslaughter and sentenced to the. Slate prison for the period of five years.
The first contention is that there is no such offense, common law or statutory, as that of which he was convicted. Such contention is fully met and overthrown by the decision of this court in the case of Williams v. State, 41 Fla. 295, 26 South. Rep. 184, and we see no good reason for changing the views of the law as there expressed.
Another assignment challenges the action of the trial court in permitting the State Attorney to show that one of the State’s witnesses had. made a contradictory statement. The State had put upon ..fie stand the defendant’s wife who gave positive testimony in his favor, prejudicial to the State, and therefore adverse to the party calling her. The State Attorney testified that he was taken by surprise and that the witness had on a previous occasion made a different statement to him. The circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, giving the time, place, persons present, and substance of the alleged statement, were mentioned to the witness' and she was asked if she made such statement. On her .denial, two of the persons so named as present were called as witnesses by the State and testified she' did make-such statement. It further appeared that at the time of the original statement She and her husband were not on good terms.
The evidence of these later witnesses can not be said to be substantive evidence to .sustain the cause of the party who produced the impeached witness, but its purpose was to counteract the harmful effect of the adverse testimony of such witness. It is not a case óf a mere failure to testify to facts that it was supposed she knew or that would, have been beneficial, as was that of Adams v. State, 34 Fla. 185, 15 South. Rep.
905. The demeanor of the-witness -on the stand enters so largely into the determination of whether or not she be; “adverse” in the meaning of the statute; that much discretion must.be accorded the trial judge in such determination. Williams v. Dickenson, 28 Fla. 90, 9 South, Rep. 847.
It is objected here for the first time that the questions propounded to1 these later witnesses were leading. The objections come too late.. See, also, Anthony v. State, 44 Fla....., 32 South.. Rep. 818, and cases cited.. ,
It is further objected that the' impeaching testimony was improperly admitted, becausé the witness só sought 'to be impeached had been examined in chief, turned over to the defense &nd cross-examined before any predicate therefor whs laid. It does not appear that 'there was any -improper motive'on the part of-the State in this delay, nor that the defendant was deceived or injuriously a ffected thereby, and the discretion of' the' Circuit Court in admitting the testimony out of the regular order as to time does not appear to have been abused. Brown v State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63.
There was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to support the verdict, ana we do not feel authorized, therefore, to .set it asidé:
This disposes of all the assignments ¡of error before us, and the judgment must be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pleas Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1907)…h is not charged in the information, where the elements of the offense are not embraced in some greater offense charged.” See, also, Winburn v. State, 28 Fla. 339, 9 South. Rep. 694; Wiliams v. State, 41 Fla. 295, 26 South. Rep. 184; Bryan v. State, 45 Fla. 8, 34 South. Rep. 243; Pyke v. State, 47 Fla. 93, 36 South. Rep. 577. The greatest offense charged against the defendant in the instant case is assault with intent to murder in the first degree. The gist of this offense consists in the intent with wh…
-
Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1945)…witness that is inconsistent with his statements testified to have been made on other occasions.” The above case was followed, and to some extent enlarged upon, in Sylvester v. State, 46 Fla. 166, 35 So. 142. It was also followed in Bryan v. State, 45 Fla. 8, 34 So. 243; Sloan v. State, 70 Fla. 216, 70 So. 23; and in Rowe v. State, 128 Fla. 394, 174 So. 820. In the last case cited, the Adams case was adhered to, but it was held that it is permissible, for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of a…
-
Johnson v. State, 178 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…rse by giving evidence that is prejudicial to the cause of the party producing him.” (Its emphasis.) While this was followed in Hernandez v. State, supra, there are three cases which seem to find a different meaning in “adverse.” In Bryan v. State, 45 Fla. 8, 34 So. 243, and Sylvester v. State, 46 Fla. 166, 35 So. 142, the Court seems to equate “adverse” with “hostile.” In the first of these cases it said that the “demeanor” of the witness on the stand enters largely into the determination of whether he…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. State, 34 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1894)
- Will Williams v. State, 41 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1899)
- Williams v. Dickenson, 28 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1891)
- Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1898)