SAM MATHIS AND OBE MATHIS, PLAINTIFFS 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.
Sam Mathis and Obe Mathis were convicted of first-degree murder and appealed on the grounds that the trial court improperly excluded character evidence questions and that jurors used intoxicating liquor during deliberations. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the exclusion of the questions proper and the jury misconduct allegation unsupported by admissible evidence.
The trial court properly excluded the character evidence questions because they were not relevant to the defendants' guilt or innocence on the murder charge and did not go to general reputation. The alleged jury misconduct could not be considered because the juror affidavit was insufficient evidence to support the motion for new trial. The verdict was supported by ample evidence.
“Whether the defendants had previously violated the law or had trouble is not shown to have had any bearing on the question of their guilt or innocence of the offense charged.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that prior conduct questions were properly excluded as irrelevant to the murder charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSam Mathis and Obe Mathis were tried for first-degree murder. At trial, the court excluded questions posed by the defendants' counsel asking whether t…
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 Juror Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
— The plaintiffs in error were convicted of murder in the first degree and took writ of error. At the trial the court excluded the following question asked the defendant Sam Mathis by his counsel: “Have you ever, prior to this time, been charged with any violation of law?” The court also excluded the following questions asked the defendant Obe Mathis by his counsel: “Have you ever had any trouble prior to that time?” “Have you ever been charged prior to that time, with any violation of the law?”
These questions related to particular facts that do not appear to have been relevant to the issue being tried and were properly excluded. ’Whether the defendants had previously violated the law or had trouble is not shown to have had any bearing on the question of their guilt or innocence of the offense charged. The questions asked do not go to the general reputation of the defendant, and the particular issues of fact tendered by the questions were not within the purview of the issues being tried.
The ground of the motion for new trial that intoxicating liquor was used by the jury when considering their verdict cannot be passed upon as there is no evidence in the bill of exceptions to support the motion.- The affidavit of a juror as to the use of. beer and whiskey in the jury room copied into the record proper cannot be considered as evidence of a matter in pais even if the affidavit of a juror is competent evidence for the purpose and the statements therein could effect the verdict rendered.
, There is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that the jury was not governed by the evidence in reaching their verdict even if the affidavit above mentioned be considered.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, Shackleford’ Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Langford v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 123 Fla. 855 (Fla. 1935)…some member of the jury made an erroneous or improper statement or argument during their deliberation. Coker and Scheiffer v. Hayes, 16 Fla. 368; McMurray & Brittain v. Basnett, 18 Fla. 609; Kelly v. State, 39 Fla. 122, 22 So. 303; Mathis v. State, 63 Fla. 21, 58 So. 541; Turner, et al., v. State, 99 Fla. 246, 126 So. 158; 27 R. C. L. 896. [*859] An enlightening discussion of this subject will be found in Wigmore on Evidence (2nd Ed.) Vo. 5, pages 105 to 109, inclusive. It is there pointed out that there…
-
Davis v. State, 95 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1928)…State, 24 Fla. 358, 5 South. Rep. 6; Hicks v. State, 25 Fla. 535, 6 South. Rep. 441; Johnston v. State, 29 Fla. 558, 10 South. Rep. 686; Bexley v. State, 59 Fla. 6, 51 South. Rep. 278; Clark v. State, 59 Fla. 9, 52 South. Rep. 518; Mathis v. State, 63 Fla. 21, 58 South. Rep. 541; Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135, 63 South. Rep. 138; Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 South. Rep. 424; Britt v. State, 88 Fla. 482, 102 South. Rep. 761; Blocker v. State, 90 Fla. 136, 105 South. Rep. 316. The other assignments of…