J. L. GOFF, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a rehearing, holding that even if immaterial testimony was improperly admitted, it did not prejudice the defendant, and there was no fatal variance between the information and the proof.
No, the admission of immaterial testimony was not reversible error because it did not prejudice the defendant. No fatal variance existed because the proof aligned with the information regarding the property's occupancy.
“If it be assumed that technical error was committed in admitting testimony over the defendant’s objection, the testimony-was merely immaterial and not essentially illegal.”
Establishes the court's view on the nature of the alleged evidentiary error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of a crime. The defendant appealed, alleging error in the admission of testimony and a variance between the information an…
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 Variance Between Information And Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
On Rehearing.
Whitfield, C. J.
If it be assumed that technical error was committed in admitting testimony over the defendant’s objection, the testimony-was merely immaterial and not essentially illegal. This being so, the error, if any, does not cause a reversal of the judgment, as it appears from the record brought here by the defendant on his writ of error that the admission of the supposed immaterial evidence could not reasonably have injured the defendant. The fact that the defendant omitted to include in the bill of exceptions the evidence ,fo.r.the defendant does not affect this conclusion. There is evidence that the house burned was the property of E. L. Parshley and that one side of it was occupied by the defendant as a meat market and the other side by C. T. McDaniel as a bowling alley, so no fatal variance between the information and the proof appears. A rehearing is denied.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, Hocker, and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Boley, 287 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1973)…iolation of the drug abuse law, in order to charge felonious delivery of cannabis. In my opinion, the State is not required to negate a statutory exception in an information. See Crooke v. Van Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 So. 166 (Fla.1918); Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 17, 53 So. 327 (1910); State v. Kahler, 232 So. 2d 166 (Fla.1970); Fla. Stat. § 404.13, F.S.A.; Salas v. State, 246 So. 2d 621 (Fla.App.3d, 1971). Therefore, the decision of the District Court of Ap [*669] peal is in conflict with the above-cited decis…