JACK COLDEN, 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.
Jack Golden was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of Will James and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Golden's argument that the trial court erred in allowing a coroner's inquest juror to testify from memory about a witness's prior testimony rather than requiring the written transcript as best evidence.
The trial court did not err in overruling the objection. The best evidence rule does not apply to preliminary or innocuous questions, and the state was entitled to first establish through testimony whether the witness had sufficient memory to be helpful before being required to produce the written evidence. The question itself was purely preliminary and wholly innocuous.
“Mere preliminary questions ordinarily cannot be objected to.”
Establishes that preliminary questions are not subject to the best evidence rule and objections to them are improper.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack Golden was indicted in Holmes County Circuit Court for the murder of Will James. He was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life i…
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 Preliminary Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
— Jack Golden, indicted in the circuit court for Holmes county for the murder of Will James, was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. Upon his writ of error he relies for reversal upon the overruling of an objection interposed for him .at the trial.
The state offered as its witness in rebuttal of testimony by one Gus Tanner for the defense, a juror at the coroner’s inquest, and asked him “Do you recollect where Gus Tanner testified'he was standing at the time this occurred ?” Before the question was answered the defense brought out the fact that the coroner took the testimony-down in writing and that it was signed by Tanner and then objected to the question on the ground that such writing was the best evidence. The objection was overruled and the witness answered that he did remember and further gave his recollection of that testimony. No motion was made to strike the answer in whole or in part, and it is evident that the question, a preliminary one, was of itself wholly innocuous. Should we grant the contention of the plaintiff in error that' the “best evidence” rule obtains under these circumstances, it is apparent the state was not called upon to make any further showing at the time until it first ascertained that the witness’ memory was such as to be of assistance, should the difficulty be overcome. Mere preliminary questions ordinarily cannot be objected 'to. Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 South. Rep. 909; Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 South. Rep. 611.
The judgment is affirmed.
Si-iackleford, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, J., concur;
Taylor, LIocker and Parki-iill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)…n the flesh?” This question was a mere preliminary question and, under the repeated rulings of this court, was not open to objection. Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 South. Rep. 611; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 South. Rep. 909; Golden v. State, 54 Fla. 43, 44 South. Rep. 948. No motion was made to strike out the answer. As we held in Ortiz v. State, supra, “Where a question to a witness is not improper in itself, but the answer presents evidence which is illegal or objectionable on any known ground,…
-
Rentz v. Live Oak Bank, 61 Fla. 403 (Fla. 1911)…all for illegal or inadmissible testimony. Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 South. Rep. 611; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 South. Rep. 909; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby, 53 Fla. 400, text 444, 43 South. Rep. 318, text 331; Golden v. State, 54 Fla. 43, 44 South. Rep. 948; East Coast Lumber Co. v. Ellis-Young Co., 55 Fla. 256, 45 South. Rep. 826; Gainesville & Gulf R. R. Co. v. Peck, 55 Fla. 402, 46 South. Rep. 1019. After the witness had answered the question propounded to him he proceeded to sta…
-
Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1920)…the defendant, by his attorney, did then and there except.” ■ ' The testimony that the defendant had forged a check was improper and harmful and should have beén excluded on motion. Reddick v. State, 25 Fla. 112, 5 South. Rep. 704; Golden v. State, 54 Fla. 43, 44 South. Rep. 948; 16 C. J. 582. The general rule is that evidence of particular Acts of misconduct cannot be introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness. Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 South. Rep. 474. [*584] Evidence of another and d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Claudio Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1892)
- Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1905)