ANDY HARMON, 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.
Andy Harmon was convicted of assault with intent to murder after cutting H. D. Messer with a knife and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. On appeal, Harmon challenged the admission of evidence regarding the victim's pain and objected to the State Attorney's waiver of closing argument, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
The admission of evidence of the victim's pain was proper and material because the extent of pain bears a close relation to the extent of injury and violence of the assault, which is material in showing the assailant's intent. The defendant was not prejudiced by the State Attorney's waiver of closing argument because no prejudicial remarks were shown and there is no legal requirement that either party address the jury.
“The extent of the pain bears a close relation to the extent of the injury and the violence of the assault, which in turn is material in showing the intent of the assaulting party.”
Establishes that evidence of the victim's pain is material and admissible to prove the defendant's intent to murder.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndy Harmon indicted, tried, and convicted of assault with intent to murder by cutting H. D. Messer with a knife. He was sentenced to five years in st…
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 Simple Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Andy Harmon was indicted, tried and convicted of an assault with intent to murder one H. D. Messer by cutting him with a knife and was sentenced to the State prison for a term of five years.
Over an objection as to materiality the State was permitted to prove that the person assaulted suffered great pain. The indictment covered various degrees of assaults, including aggravated and simple assaults, and it was competent for the State to prove the suffering consequent upon the act. The extent of the pain bears a close relation to the extent of the injury and the violence of the assault, which in turn is material in showing the intent of the assaulting party. People v. Sutherland, 104 Mich. 468, 62 N. W. Rep. 566. This answers the only objection to evidence raised at the trial.
At the conclusion of the testimony, the State Attorney announced that he waived the opening argument, and the defendant moved that he be required to state the facts relied upon for conviction, whereupon “the court stated that he would require the State Attorney to read any authorities he had to submit, and the State Attorney then and there announced that he had no authorities to submit to the court. Thereupon the court overruled the motion, to which action upon the part of the court in refusing said motion, the defendant did then and there except. And the said parties having concluded their testimony, and the several matters aforesaid, the judge did then and there give his opinion and deliver his charge to the jury,” etc. It will be observed from the foregoing extract from the bill of exceptions that it does not appear that the State Attorney made any remarks prejudicial or otherwise, in his closing address, nor that he made any closing address at all, much less that the defense was injured by the refusal of the court to permit a reply to any remarks that might have been so made. We know of no rule of law that requires either party to address the jury and perhaps weaken the eloquence of the facts brought out on the witness stand, and can not say the accused was injured by anything disclosed in this record.
The special charges in behalf of the .defense were sufficiently covered by the court in its general charge and a repetition was properly refused.
The evidence was lengthy and need not be inserted here. That on the part of the State made out the crimes and we are not disposed to interfere with the jury’s verdict.
This disposes of all the assignments of error and the judgment is affirmed, at the cost of Washington county.
Taylor, C. J., and Hocker, J., concur. Carter, P. J., and Shackleford and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Will Tindall v. State, 99 Fla. 1132 (Fla. 1930)…mit the State to waive the opening argument where it is not made to appear that there was any closing argument, on behalf of the State, prejudicial to defendant, or argument to which counsel for defendant was not permitted to reply. Harmon v. State, 48 Fla. 44, 37 So. R. 520. See also recent dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brown in the case of Andrews v. State, — Fla. —, 126 So. R. 751. The third assignment of error is based upon the denial of the motion in arrest of judgment, which raises practically…
-
McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1913)…tent to commit murder in the second degree may lawfully have been found, and such a verdict having been found by the jury and approved by the trial court, it will not be disturbed here. Pyke v. State, 47 Fla. 93, 36 South. Rep. 577; Harmon v. State, 48 Fla. 44, 37 South. Rep. 520; Revels v. State, 33 Fla. 308, 14 South. Rep. 821. The judgment is affirmed. Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.…
-
McGRIFF v. State, 417 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…efendant. See Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329, 176 So. 154 (Fla.1937) [in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder, no error in allowing victim to exhibit scars since scars were physical evidence of character of assault]; Harmon v. State, 48 Fla. 44, 37 So. 520 (Fla.1904) [under indictment covering various degrees of assaults, including aggravated and simple assaults, evidence that the assaulted person suffered great pain is not immaterial]; Waddy v. State, 355 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence