WILLIE HAMPTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that it was error to preclude the defendant from presenting conflicting medical testimony after the state opened the door to such evidence.
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. The state presented medical testimony suggesting the decedent's death was due to negligent medical treatm…
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 Opening The Door (Evidentiary Rule) cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
This appeal from a judgment and conviction for manslaughter deals primarily with the admissibility of medical testimony that the treatment, or lack thereof, received by the decedent in the hospital rose to a level of culpable negligence. The law appears well settled that where the wound inflicted by the assailant is dangerous to life, mere erroneous treatment of it would not afford the defendant protection against a charge of unlawful homicide. Johnson v. State, 64 Fla. 321, 59 So. 894 (1912); Tunsil v. State, 338 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Adams v. State, 310 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
However, in this case the state was permitted, over objection, to question the medical examiner extensively on whether the care or lack of care received by the decedent had any bearing on his death some eight days after admission to the hospital. This was clearly made a major feature of the case by the prosecution. The defense sought to present contradictory testimony from a neurologist, Dr. Cohen, but the court sustained the state’s objection to admission of this evidence.
We are of the view that once the state opened the door to presentation of this evidence to the jury, it was error to preclude the defendant from advancing conflicting testimony. Where the state has put forward testimony showing a causal relationship between the act complained of and the death of the decedent, the defense must then come forward and present evi dence, if possible, as to some other cause of death. Coachman v. State, 114 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).
We do not find any merit to appellant’s other points on appeal. We reverse the conviction herein and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rose v. State, 591 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…this case the evidence showed that the head injuries suffered by the child were in themselves lethal and were caused by child abuse. Although medical treatment might have saved the child’s life, it does not excuse defendant’s act. Hampton v. State, 542 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) is distinguishable. In that case we held that evidence of lack of medical care was admissible because the state had made it an issue in the state’s case in chief. By contrast, in the instant case the state did not question any of…1 / 3
-
Royster v. State, 741 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…m any other shop that they do it that way? No. Is there any evidence that - Royster is entitled to an adequate defense with regards to how the police informant Rodriguez dealt with other pawn shops under similar circumstances. See Hampton v. State, 542 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We, therefore, reverse for a new trial. Reversed. PATTERSON, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Joshea J. Gilliams v. State, 262 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Johnson v. State, 64 Fla. 321 (Fla. 1912)
- Adams v. State, 310 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Tunsil v. State, 338 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Coachman v. State, 114 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)